11434 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005] 

RIN 1904–AF57 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Conventional Cooking Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. In this direct final 

rule, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) is adopting new and amended 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. DOE has determined that the 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for these products would 

result in significant conservation of 

energy, and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

June 13, 2024. If adverse comments are 

received by June 3, 2024 and DOE 

determines that such comments may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the direct final rule under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal 

of this rule will be published in the 

Federal Register. If no such adverse 

comments are received, compliance 

with the new and amended standards 

established for consumer conventional 

cooking products in this direct final rule 

is required on and after January 31, 

2028. Comments regarding the likely 

competitive impact of the standards 

contained in this direct final rule should 

be sent to the Department of Justice 

contact listed in the ADDRESSES section 

on or before March 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking, which includes Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0005. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

The U.S. Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division invites input from 

market participants and other interested 

persons with views on the likely 

competitive impact of the standards 

contained in this direct final rule. 

Interested persons may contact the 

Antitrust Division at 

www.energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or 

before the date specified in the DATES

section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ 

line of your email the title and Docket 

Number of this direct final rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

5649. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 751– 

5157. Email: Melanie.Lampton@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. Current Test Procedure 

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products 

4. The Joint Agreement 

III. General Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage 

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points 

of View 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Product Classes 

a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking 

Tops 

2. Technology Options 

a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking 

Tops 

b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops 

c. Gas Cooking Tops 

d. Conventional Ovens 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops 

b. Gas Cooking Tops 

c. Conventional Ovens 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

b. Conventional Ovens 

2. Cost Analysis 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

a. Electric Cooking Tops 

b. Gas Cooking Tops 

c. Conventional Ovens 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

3. Comments From Interested Parties 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11435 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

3This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0005-12811. 

4This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0005-12812. 

5This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0005-12813. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

P. Other Comments 

1. Commerce Clause 

2. Fuel Neutrality under EPCA 

3. National Academy of Sciences Report 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. National Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

a. General Comments 

b. Market Availability 

c. High Input Rate Burners 

d. Low Input Rate Burners 

e. Cooking Time 

f. Continuous Cast-Iron Grates 

g. Conventional Ranges 

h. Unit Width 

i. Conclusion 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Products Standards 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Adopted Standards 

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling 

Plan 

1. Sampling and Test Procedure 

Repeatability 

2. Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

M. Congressional Notification 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) These products include consumer 

conventional cooking products, the 

subject of this direct final rule. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must, among other things, be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

In light of the above and under the 

authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct 

final rule establishing and amending 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. 

The adopted standard levels in this 

direct final rule were proposed in a 

letter submitted to DOE jointly by 

groups representing manufacturers, 

energy and environmental advocates, 

consumer groups, and a utility. This 

letter, titled ‘‘Energy Efficiency 

Agreement of 2023’’ (hereafter, the 

‘‘Joint Agreement’’ 3), recommends 

specific energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products that, in the commenters’ view, 

would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently 

received letters of support from States 

including New York, California, and 

Massachusetts 4 and utilities including 

San Diego Gas and Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’) 

and Southern California Edison 

(‘‘SCE’’) 5 advocating for the adoption of 

the recommended standards. 

In accordance with the direct final 

rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), 

DOE has determined that the 

recommendations contained in the Joint 

Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also 

simultaneously publishing a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that 

contains identical standards to those 

adopted in this direct final rule. 

Consistent with the statute, DOE is 

providing a 110-day public comment 

period on the direct final rule. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines 

that any comments received provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) 

or any other applicable law, DOE will 

publish the reasons for withdrawal and 

continue the rulemaking under the 

NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See 

section II.A of this document for more 

details on DOE’s statutory authority. 

The new and amended standards that 

DOE is adopting in this direct final rule 

are the efficiency levels recommended 

in the Joint Agreement (shown in Table 

I.1 and Table I.2). They are 

performance-based standards for 

conventional cooking tops and 

prescriptive standards for conventional 

ovens. The standards for conventional 

cooking tops are expressed in terms of 

integrated annual energy consumption 

(‘‘IAEC’’), measured in thousand British 

thermal units per year (‘‘kBtu/year’’) for 

gas cooking tops and in kilowatt-hours 

per year (‘‘kWh/year’’) for electric 

cooking tops, as measured according to 

DOE’s current conventional cooking top 

test procedure codified at title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) 

part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 

(‘‘appendix I1’’). 

The Joint Agreement replaces the 

existing prescriptive standard for gas 

cooking tops—which prohibits a 

constant burning pilot light—with a 

performance standard that is expressed 

as the maximum IAEC as determined in 

accordance with the appendix I1 test 

procedure. The Joint Agreement 

excludes portable indoor conventional 

cooking tops (discussed in section III.A 

of this document) from these amended 

standards, and DOE is clarifying in this 

direct final rule that the existing 

prohibition on constant burning pilot 

lights for gas portable indoor 

conventional cooking tops will continue 

to be applicable. For electric cooking 

tops, the Joint Agreement recommends 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11436 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

6The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the 

compliance year in the absence of new or amended 

standards (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The 

simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 

baseline product (see section IV.C of this 

document). 

a performance standard that similarly is 

expressed as the maximum IAEC, 

determined in accordance with the 

appendix I1 test procedure. For both gas 

and electric cooking tops, the IAEC 

metric includes active mode, standby 

mode, and off mode energy use. The 

Joint Agreement’s standards for 

conventional cooking tops apply to all 

products listed in Table I.1 and 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States starting on January 31, 

2028. 

DOE notes that none of the 

Department’s energy conservation 

standards limit a consumer’s use of a 

covered product, including consumer 

conventional cooking products. For 

example, the Joint Agreement’s 

performance standards for conventional 

cooking tops, which are expressed as 

the maximum IAEC in kWh/year for 

electric cooking tops and kBtu/year for 

gas cooking tops, do not limit 

consumers’ use of a conventional 

cooking top within the home. Rather, 

the IAEC metric is a measure of the 

estimated energy usage for a given 

cooking top model for a representative 

period of use (in this case, 1 year), as 

determined according to the DOE test 

procedure. Expressing energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking tops in terms of the IAEC metric 

provides a common point of comparison 

across all conventional cooking top 

models, e.g., a conventional cooking top 

with a lower IAEC is more energy 

efficient. And establishing a maximum 

IAEC ensures that all conventional 

cooking tops meet at least a certain level 

of energy efficiency, while not limiting 

a consumer’s use of their conventional 

cooking top. 

This direct final rule also establishes 

a prescriptive design requirement for 

conventional ovens that prohibits 

conventional ovens from being 

equipped with a control system that 

uses a linear power supply. (See Table 

I.2.) The new and amended standards 

recommended in the Joint Agreement 

are represented as trial standard level 

(‘‘TSL’’) 1 in this document and are 

described in section V.A of this 

document. These standards apply to all 

conventional ovens manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States starting 

on January 31, 2028, as recommended 

by the Joint Agreement. DOE also notes 

that the current prescriptive standards 

for gas ovens prohibiting constant 

burning pilot lights will continue to be 

applicable. (10 CFR 430.32(j)) Table I.2 

provides a summary of the standards for 

conventional ovens. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.3 summarizes DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic impacts of 

the adopted standards on consumers of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, as measured by the average 

life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings and the 

simple payback period (‘‘PBP’’).6 The 

average LCC savings are positive for all 

product classes, and the PBP is less than 

the average lifetime of consumer 

conventional cooking products, which 

is estimated to be 14.5 and 16.8 years for 

gas and electric cooking products, 

respectively (see section IV.F of this 

document). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.000</GPH> ER14FE24.001</GPH>

Table 1.1 Energy Conservation Performance Standards for Conventional Cooking 

To s Com Hance Startin Janua 31, 2028 

Product Class Maximum integrated annual 

AEC 

Electric O en Coil Element Cookin To s No standard 

207 kWW ear 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component of Combined 

Cookin Products 207 kWh/year 

Products 

Table 1.2 Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for Conventional Ovens 

Com Hance Startin Janua 31, 2028 

Product Class 

Electric Ovens 

Gas Ovens 

New and Amended Standards 

Shall not be equipped with a control system that uses linear 

ower su l .* 

The control system for gas ovens shall: 

(1) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light; 

and 

* A linear power supply produces unregulated as well as regulated power. The unregulated portion of a linear power 

supply typically consists of a transformer that steps alternating current ("AC") line voltage down, a voltage rectifier 

circuit for AC to direct current ("DC") conversion, and a capacitor to produce unregulated, direct current output. Linear 

power supplies are described in section IV.C.l.b of this document. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11437 

7 DOE’s analysis period extends 30 years from the 

compliance year. The analysis period ranges from 

2024–2056 for the no-new-standards case and all 

TSLs, except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL). 

The analysis period for the Recommended TSL 

ranges from 2024–2057 due to the 2028 compliance 

year. 

8The no-new-standards case INPV of $1,601 

million reflects the sum of discounted free cash 

flows from 2024–2056 (from the reference year to 

30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a 

discounted terminal value. 

9All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2022 dollars. and, where appropriate, 

are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated 

otherwise. 

10The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.1 of this document. 

11A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

12 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative 

to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 

(‘‘AEO2023’’). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent 

possible, laws and regulations adopted through 

mid-November 2022, including the Inflation 

Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this document 

for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that 

effect air pollutant emissions. 

13To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions this analysis uses values that are based 

on the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published 

in February 2021 by the IWG. (‘‘Feb. 2021 SC–GHG 

TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 

2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_

SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

adopted standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value 

(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the base 

year (2024) through the end of the 

analysis period, which is 30 years from 

the analyzed compliance date.7 Using a 

real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products in the 

case without new and amended 

standards is $1,601 million.8 Under the 

adopted standards, which align with the 

Recommended TSL for consumer 

conventional cooking products, DOE 

estimates the change in INPV to range 

from ¥9.0 percent to ¥9.0 percent, 

which is approximately a change in 

INPV of ¥$144 million to ¥$143 

million, respectively. In order to bring 

products into compliance with new and 

amended standards, it is estimated that 

industry will incur total conversion 

costs of $66.7 million. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

adopted standards on manufacturers is 

described in section IV.J and section 

V.B.2 of this document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 9

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

adopted energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products would save a significant 

amount of energy. Relative to the case 

without new and amended standards, 

the lifetime energy savings for consumer 

conventional cooking products 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the anticipated year of 

compliance with the new and amended 

standards (2028–2057), amount to 0.22 

quadrillion British thermal units 

(‘‘Btu’’), or quads.10 This represents a 

savings of approximately 2 percent 

relative to the energy use of these 

products in the case without new or 

amended standards (referred to as the 

‘‘no-new-standards case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products ranges 

from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $1.56 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product and 

installation costs for consumer 

conventional cooking products 

purchased in 2028–2057. 

In addition, the adopted standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products are projected to yield 

significant environmental benefits. DOE 

estimates that the standards will result 

in cumulative emission reductions (over 

the same period as for energy savings) 

of 3.99 million metric tons (‘‘Mt’’) 11 of 

carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 1.15 thousand 

tons of sulfur dioxide (‘‘SO2’’), 7.61 

thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 

(‘‘NOX’’), 34.70 thousand tons of 

methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.04 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.01 tons of 

mercury (‘‘Hg’’).12 The estimated 

cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions 

through 2030 amounts to 0.06 Mt, 

which is equivalent to the emissions 

resulting from the annual electricity use 

of more than 11 thousand homes. 

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different 

estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SCCO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SCCH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous 

oxide (‘‘SC-N2O’’). Together these 

represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SCGHG’’). DOE used interim SC-GHG 

values (in terms of benefit per ton of 

GHG avoided) developed by an 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 

(‘‘IWG’’).13 The derivation of these 

values is discussed in section IV.L of 

this document. For presentational 

purposes, the climate benefits 

associated with the average SC-GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate are estimated 

to be $0.22 billion. DOE does not have 

a single central SC-GHG point estimate 

and it emphasizes the importance and 

value of considering the benefits 

calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG 

estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions, using benefit per ton 

estimates from Environmental 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.002</GPH>

Table 1.3 Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of 

Conventional Cooking Products 

Product Class Average LCC Savings Simple Payback Period 

2022$ vears 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Top $62.80 0.6 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top $62.80 0.6 Component of a Combined Cooking Product 

Gas Standalone Cooking Top $3.09 6.6 

Gas Cooking Top Component of a Combined $3.09 6.6 Cooking Product 

Electric Oven $16.23 2.1 

Gas Oven $15.17 1.9 
11438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

14U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of 

Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors 

and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at 

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 

15 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

TSLs for the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

Protection Agency,14 as discussed in 

section IV.L of this document. DOE did 

not monetize the reduction in mercury 

emissions because the quantity is very 

small. DOE estimated the present value 

of the health benefits would be $0.16 

billion using a 7-percent discount rate, 

and $0.42 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate.15 DOE is currently only 

monetizing health benefits from changes 

in ambient fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) concentrations from two 

precursors (SO2 and NOX), and from 

changes in ambient ozone from one 

precursor (for NOX), but will continue to 

assess the ability to monetize other 

effects such as health benefits from 

reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. 

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the new and amended standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. There are other important 

unquantified effects, including certain 

unquantified climate benefits, 

unquantified public health benefits from 

the reduction of toxic air pollutants and 

other emissions, unquantified energy 

security benefits, and distributional 

effects, among others. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.003</GPH>

Table 1.4 Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cookin~ Products 

Billion 2022$ 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1.63 

Climate Benefits* 0.22 

Health Benefits** 0.42 

Total Benefitst 2.27 

Consumer Incremental Product Costst 0.07 

Net Monetized Benefits 2.20 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPvtt) (0.14) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 0.69 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 0.22 

Health Benefits** 0.16 

Total Benefitst 1.07 

Consumer Incremental Product Costst 0.04 

Net Monetized Benefits 1.03 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPvtt) (0.14) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 

2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2058 from the products 

shipped in 2028-2057. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this 

document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-

percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits 

calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits ofreducing GHG emissions this analysis 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11439 

16To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2024, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated 

the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, 

starting in the compliance year, that yields the same 

present value. 

The benefits and costs of the adopted 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the value of 

climate and health benefits of emission 

reductions, all annualized.16

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products shipped in 2028–2057. The 

benefits associated with reduced 

emissions achieved as a result of the 

adopted standards are also calculated 

based on the lifetime of consumer 

conventional cooking products shipped 

in 2028–2057. Total benefits for both the 

3-percent and 7-percent cases are 

presented using the average GHG social 

costs with 3-percent discount rate. 

Estimates of total benefits are presented 

for all four SC-GHG discount rates in 

section V.B.6 of this document. 

Table I.5 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs associated 

with the adopted standards, expressed 

in terms of annualized values. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards adopted in this 

rule is $3.9 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the estimated 

annual benefits are $68.1 million in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$12.4 million in climate benefits, and 

$16.1 million in health benefits. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$92.6 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the standards is $4.0 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual benefits are $90.8 

million in reduced operating costs, 

$12.4 million in climate benefits, and 

$23.5 million in health benefits. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$122.7 million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.004</GPH>

uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for 

SO2 and NOx) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to 

assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. See 

section IV.L of this document for more details. 

t Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For 

presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average 

SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE 

emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. 

l Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as 

discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to 

manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately 

conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (i.e., manufacturer impact analysis, or "MIA"). See 

section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on 

assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cash flow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, 

which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry 

cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in 

INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9 .1 percent that is estimated in the MIA 

(see chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document ("TSD") for a complete description of the industry 

weighted average cost of capital). For consumer conventional cooking products, the change in INPV ranges from -$144 

million to -$143 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically 

justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup 

scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the 

calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where 

DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated change in INPV in the previously table, drawing 

on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated 

impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is 

consistent with Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") Circular A-4 and Executive Order ("E.O.") 12866. If 

DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the net benefits would be $2.06 

billion at 3-percent discount rate and would be $0.89 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses() indicate negative 

values. 
11440 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.005</GPH>

Table 1.5 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Consumer 

Conventional Cookin2 Products 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-NetBenefits Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 90.8 84.0 95.6 

Climate Benefits* 12.4 11.9 12.5 

Health Benefits** 23.5 22.6 23.8 

Total Benefitst 126.7 118.4 131.9 

Consumer Incremental Product Costst 4.0 4.1 3.8 

Net Benefits 122.7 114.3 128.1 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPVU) (13.8) (13.8) (13.8) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 68.1 63.3 71.5 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 12.4 11.9 12.5 

Health Benefits** 16.1 15.5 16.3 

Total Benefitst 96.6 90.7 100.3 

Consumer Incremental Product Costst 3.9 4.0 3.8 

Net Benefits 92.6 86.7 96.5 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV;;) (13.8) (13.8) (13.8) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 

2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products 

shipped in 2028-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy 

prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in 

the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive 

projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.l and IV.H.2 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs 

may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this 

document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-

percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for 

SO2 and NOx) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to 

assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. See 

section IV.L of this document for more details. 

t Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent 

discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

t Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as 

discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to 

manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately 

conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the 

detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion 

costs, cash flow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. 

The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, 

capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry 

weighted average cost of capital value of9.l percent that is estimated in the MIA (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule 

TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For consumer conventional cooking 

products, the annualized change in INPV is -$13.8 million. DOE accounts for that range oflikely impacts in analyzing 

whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V .C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to 

the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup 

scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11441 

17The information on climate benefits is provided 

in compliance with Executive Order 12866. 

18Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

19The TSD is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2014-BT-STD-0005/document. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the adopted standards is described in 

sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this 

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has determined that the Joint 

Agreement was submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the 

recommended standards and weighing 

the benefits and burdens, DOE has 

determined that the recommended 

standards are in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards. Specifically, the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) has determined 

that the adoption of the recommended 

standards would result in the significant 

conservation of energy and is the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. In 

determining whether the recommended 

standards are economically justified, the 

Secretary has determined that the 

benefits of the recommended standards 

exceed the burdens. The Secretary has 

further concluded that the 

recommended standards, when 

considering the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, emission reductions, the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions, and positive 

average LCC savings, would yield 

benefits that outweigh the negative 

impacts on some consumers and on 

manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs that could result in a reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products is $3.9 million per 

year in increased product costs, while 

the estimated annual benefits are $68.1 

million in reduced product operating 

costs, $12.4 million in climate benefits, 

and $16.1 million in health benefits. 

The net benefit amounts to $92.6 

million per year. DOE notes that the net 

benefits are substantial even in the 

absence of the climate benefits,17 and 

DOE would adopt the same standards in 

the absence of such benefits. 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.18 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

As previously mentioned, the 

standards are projected to result in 

estimated national energy savings of 

0.22 quads FFC, the equivalent of the 

primary annual energy use of 1.4 

million homes. In addition, they are 

projected to reduce cumulative CO2

emissions by 3.99 Mt. Based on these 

findings, DOE has determined the 

energy savings from the standard levels 

adopted in this direct final rule are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed 

discussion of the basis for these 

conclusions is contained in the 

remainder of this document and the 

accompanying technical support 

document (‘‘TSD’’).19

Under the authority provided by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this 

direct final rule establishing and 

amending the energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products. Consistent with this 

authority, DOE is also simultaneously 

publishing elsewhere in this Federal 

Register a NOPR proposing standards 

that are identical to those contained in 

this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)(i). 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this direct final rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include consumer 

conventional cooking products, the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy 

conservation standards for these 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and 

directed DOE to conduct future 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(2)) EPCA further provides that, 

not later than 6 years after the issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA, consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.006</GPH>

Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in 

proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in 

INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional 

context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production 

and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include the INPV into 

the annualized net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the annualized net benefits would be $108.9 million at 3-

percent discount rate and would be $78.8 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses() indicate negative values. 
11442 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption in 

limited instances for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 

6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with standards 

adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for 

conventional cooking tops appear at 

appendix I1. There are currently no 

DOE test procedures for conventional 

ovens. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. Any new or amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard if DOE determines by rule that 

the standard is not technologically 

feasible or economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding 

whether a proposed standard is 

economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the standard 

on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the 

covered products that are likely to result 

from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or 

as applicable, water) savings likely to result 

directly from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from 

the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

EPCA specifies requirements when 

promulgating an energy conservation 

standard for a covered product that has 

two or more subcategories. A rule 

prescribing an energy conservation 

standard for a type (or class) of product 

must specify a different standard level 

for a type or class of products that has 

the same function or intended use if 

DOE determines that products within 

such group: (A) consume a different 

kind of energy from that consumed by 

other covered products within such type 

(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE considers such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of such a 

feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. (Id.) Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Additionally, pursuant to the 

amendments contained in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110–140, 

final rules for new or amended energy 

conservation standards promulgated 

after July 1, 2010, are required to 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) 

Specifically, when DOE adopts a 

standard for a covered product after that 

date, it must, if justified by the criteria 

for adoption of standards under EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby 

mode and off mode energy use into a 

single standard, or, if that is not feasible, 

adopt a separate standard for such 

energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test 

procedures for conventional cooking 

tops address standby mode and off 

mode energy use, as do the new and 

amended standards adopted in this 

direct final rule. 

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in 

relevant part, to grant DOE authority to 

issue a final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct final 

rule’’) establishing an energy 

conservation standard upon receipt of a 

statement submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates), as 

determined by the Secretary, that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy or water conservation 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the 

Secretary must also determine whether 

a jointly-submitted recommendation for 

an energy or water conservation 

standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11443 

20As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

decided not to adopt energy conservation standards 

pertaining to the cooking efficiency of microwave 

ovens. DOE has since published a final rule on June 

20, 2023, adopting amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave oven standby mode and 

off mode. 88 FR 39912. DOE is not considering 

energy conservation standards for microwave ovens 

as part of this direct final rule. 

21The signatories to the Joint Agreement include 

the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(‘‘AHAM’’), American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 

Federation of America, Consumer Reports, 

Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company. Members of AHAM’s Major 

Appliance Division that make the affected products 

include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko 

Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, 

Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby 

Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; 

Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE 

Appliances, a Haier Company; L’Atelier Paris Haute 

Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; 

Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic 

Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) 

Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; 

Continued 

The direct final rule must be 

published simultaneously with a NOPR 

that proposes an energy or water 

conservation standard that is identical 

to the standard established in the direct 

final rule, and DOE must provide a 

public comment period of at least 110 

days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) While DOE typically 

provides a comment period of 60 days 

on proposed standards, for a NOPR 

accompanying a direct final rule, DOE 

provides a comment period of the same 

length as the comment period on the 

direct final rule—i.e., 110 days. Based 

on the comments received during this 

period, the direct final rule will either 

become effective, or DOE will withdraw 

it not later than 120 days after its 

issuance if: (1) one or more adverse 

comments is received, and (2) DOE 

determines that those comments, when 

viewed in light of the rulemaking record 

related to the direct final rule, may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the direct final rule under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative 

joint recommendation may also trigger a 

DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule 

in the same manner. (Id.) 

DOE has previously explained its 

interpretation of its direct final rule 

authority. In a final rule amending the 

Department’s ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products’’ at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A (‘‘Process Rule’’ or 

‘‘appendix A’’), DOE noted that it may 

issue standards recommended by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relative points of view 

as a direct final rule when the 

recommended standards are in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 

FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the 

direct final rule provision in EPCA does 

not impose additional requirements 

applicable to other standards 

rulemakings, which is consistent with 

the unique circumstances of rules 

issued through consensus agreements 

under DOE’s direct final rule authority. 

Id. DOE’s discretion remains bounded 

by its statutory mandate to adopt a 

standard that results in the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified—a requirement 

found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. As such, 

DOE’s review and analysis of the Joint 

Agreement is limited to whether the 

recommended standards satisfy the 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on April 8, 

2009 (‘‘April 2009 Final Rule’’), DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products that 

prohibit constant burning pilot lights for 

all gas cooking products (i.e., gas 

cooking products with or without an 

electrical supply cord) manufactured on 

and after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. 

These standards are set forth in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)–(2). 

2. Current Test Procedure 

On August 22, 2022, DOE published 

a test procedure final rule (‘‘August 

2022 TP Final Rule’’) establishing a test 

procedure for conventional cooking 

tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix I1, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for 

the Measuring the Energy Consumption 

of Conventional Cooking Products.’’ 87 

FR 51492. The test procedure adopted 

the latest version of the relevant 

industry standard published by the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (‘‘IEC’’), Standard 60350–2 

(Edition 2.0 2017–08), ‘‘Household 

electric cooking appliances—Part 2: 

Hobs—Methods for measuring 

performance’’ (‘‘IEC 60350–2:2021’’), for 

electric cooking tops with modifications 

including adapting the test method to 

gas cooking tops, normalizing the 

energy use of each test cycle to a 

consistent final water temperature, and 

including a measurement of standby 

mode and off mode energy use. Id. 

On February 7, 2023, DOE published 

correcting amendments to the August 

2022 TP Final Rule (‘‘February 2023 

Correcting Amendments’’). 88 FR 7846. 

Neither the errors and omissions nor the 

corrections affected the substance of the 

rulemaking, or any conclusions reached 

in support of the August 2022 TP Final 

Rule. Id. 

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products 

The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (‘‘NAECA’’), 

Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to 

establish prescriptive standards for gas 

cooking products, requiring gas ranges 

and ovens with an electrical supply 

cord that are manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with 

a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(1)) NAECA also directed DOE to 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine if more stringent or 

additional standards were justified for 

kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(2)) 

DOE undertook the first cycle of these 

rulemakings and published a final rule 

on September 8, 1998 (‘‘September 1998 

Final Rule’’), which found that no 

standards were justified for 

conventional electric cooking products 

at that time. 63 FR 48038. In addition, 

partially due to the difficulty of 

conclusively demonstrating at that time 

that elimination of standing pilot lights 

for gas cooking products without an 

electrical supply cord was economically 

justified, DOE did not include amended 

standards for gas cooking products in 

the September 1998 Final Rule. 63 FR 

48038, 48039–48040. For the second 

cycle of rulemakings, DOE published 

the April 2009 Final Rule amending the 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products to prohibit constant burning 

pilot lights for all gas cooking products 

(i.e., gas cooking products with or 

without an electrical supply cord) 

manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. 

DOE decided to not adopt energy 

conservation standards pertaining to the 

cooking efficiency of conventional 

electric cooking products because it 

determined that such standards would 

not be technologically feasible and 

economically justified at that time. 74 

FR 16040, 16085.20

4. The Joint Agreement 

On September 25, 2023, DOE received 

a joint statement (i.e., the Joint 

Agreement) recommending standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products that was submitted by groups 

representing manufacturers, energy and 

environmental advocates, consumer 

groups, and a utility.21 In addition to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp 

Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero 

Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line 

Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool 

Corporation. 22The Joint Agreement contained 

recommendations for 6 covered products: 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 

clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; 

cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration 

products. 23The Joint Agreement is available in the docket 

at www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BTSTD-0005-12811. 

24 In the test procedure comment letter, only the 

following Joint Agreement signatories were 

included: AHAM, Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Consumer Federation of America, 

Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer 

Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Furthermore, 

AHAM noted that it represents the following 

companies who manufacture residential cooking 

products are members of the AHAM Major 

Appliance Division: Arcelik A.S.; Beko US, Inc.; 

Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances 

Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; De’Longhi 

America, Inc.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; 

Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber S.p.A.; FOTILE 

America, LLC; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; 

Gradient, Inc.; Hisense USA Corporation; LG 

Electronics USA, Inc.; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea 

America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation 

of America; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; 

Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; SubZero Group, Inc.; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool 

Corporation. 

recommended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, the Joint 

Agreement also included separate 

recommendations for several other 

covered products.22 And, while 

acknowledging that DOE may 

implement these recommendations in 

separate rulemakings, the Joint 

Agreement also stated that the 

recommendations were recommended 

as a complete package and each 

recommendation is contingent upon the 

other parts being implemented. DOE 

understands this to mean that the Joint 

Agreement is contingent upon DOE 

initiating rulemaking processes to adopt 

all of the recommended standards in the 

agreement. That is distinguished from 

an agreement where issuance of an 

amended energy conservation standard 

for a covered product is contingent on 

issuance of amended energy 

conservation standards for the other 

covered products. If the Joint Agreement 

were so construed, it would conflict 

with the anti-backsliding provision in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would 

imply the possibility that, if DOE were 

unable to issue an amended standard for 

a certain product, it would have to 

withdraw a previously issued standard 

for one of the other products. The antibacksliding provision, however, 

prevents DOE from withdrawing or 

amending an energy conservation 

standard to be less stringent. As a result, 

DOE will be proceeding with individual 

rulemakings that will evaluate each of 

the recommended standards separately 

under the applicable statutory criteria. 

The Joint Agreement recommends new 

and amended standard levels for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products as presented in Table II.1. 

(Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) 

Details of the Joint Agreement 

recommendations for other products are 

provided in the Joint Agreement posted 

in the docket.23

The Joint Agreement also stated that 

the signatories would propose 

separately to DOE the inclusion of an 

alternative simmer calculation in the 

DOE test procedure for use in 

certification. (Id.) The Joint Agreement 

specified that, for enforcement 

purposes, DOE would rely on the full 

simmer test, rather than the alternative 

simmer calculation (which would be 

similar to the triangulation method used 

for refrigerator/freezers at 10 CFR 

429.134(b)(2)). (Id.) DOE received a 

comment on the cooking top test 

procedure from the Joint Agreement 

signatories 24 on January 5, 2024, and 

will address the issues raised in the 

comment in a separate test procedure 

rulemaking. 

When the Joint Agreement was 

submitted, DOE was conducting a 

rulemaking to consider amending the 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products. As part of that 

process, DOE published a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘SNOPR’’) and announced a public 

meeting on February 1, 2023, (‘‘February 

2023 SNOPR’’) seeking comment on its 

proposed new and amended standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products to inform its decision 

consistent with its obligations under 

EPCA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act (‘‘APA’’). 88 FR 6818. The February 

2023 SNOPR proposed new and 

amended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, 

consisting of maximum IAEC levels for 

electric and gas cooking tops and design 

requirements for conventional ovens. Id. 

Subsequently, on February 28, 2023, 

DOE published a notification of data 

availability (‘‘NODA’’) providing 

additional information to clarify the 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis for gas 

cooking tops (‘‘February 2023 NODA’’). 

88 FR 6818. Finally, on August 2, 2023, 

DOE published a second NODA 

(‘‘August 2023 NODA’’) updating its 

analysis for gas cooking tops based on 

the stakeholder data it received in 

response to the February 2023 SNOPR. 

88 FR 50810. The February 2023 SNOPR 

TSD is available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2014-BT-STD-0005-0090. 

Although DOE is adopting the Joint 

Agreement as a direct final rule and no 

longer proceeding with its own 

rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant 

comments, data, and information 

obtained during that rulemaking process 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.007</GPH>

Table 11.1 Recommended New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards for 

Consumer Conventional Cooking Products 

Product Class Standard Level Compliance Date 

Electric Coil No standard 

Propose new class: Electric smooth 207 kWh/year Cooktop* 

Propose new Class: Electric smooth range* 207 kWh/year January 31, 2028 Propose new class: Gas cooktop* 1,770 kBtu/vear 

Propose new class: Gas range* 1,770 kBtu/year 

Ovens (Electric and Gas)* Electric: Baseline + SMPS 

Gas: Baseline + SMPS 

* Excludes portable cooking products. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11445 

25The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional cooking 

products. (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005, 

which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The 

references are arranged as follows: (commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

26The term ‘‘surface unit’’ refers to burners for 

gas cooking tops and electric resistance heating 

elements or inductive heating elements for electric 

cooking tops. 

in determining whether the 

recommended standards from the Joint 

Agreement are in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of 

comments, data, or information in this 

direct final rule that were obtained 

during DOE’s prior rulemaking will 

include a parenthetical reference that 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.25

III. General Discussion 

DOE is issuing this direct final rule 

after determining that the recommended 

standards submitted in the Joint 

Agreement meet the requirements in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, 

DOE has determined that the 

recommended standards were submitted 

by interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

and the recommended standards satisfy 

the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

A. Scope of Coverage 

Before discussing how the Joint 

Agreement meets the requirements for 

issuing a direct final rule, it is important 

to clarify the scope of coverage for the 

recommended standards. DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430.2 define 

‘‘cooking products’’ as consumer 

products that are used as the major 

household cooking appliances. They are 

designed to cook or heat different types 

of food by one or more of the following 

sources of heat: gas, electricity, or 

microwave energy. Each product may 

consist of a horizontal cooking top 

containing one or more surface units 26

and/or one or more heating 

compartments. 10 CFR 430.2. This 

direct final rule covers consumer 

conventional cooking products, i.e., 

those consumer cooking products that 

meet the definition of ‘‘conventional 

cooking top’’ and ‘‘conventional oven,’’ 

as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. Industrial 

cooking equipment and microwave 

ovens are not in the scope of this direct 

final rule. 

In the Joint Agreement, portable 

cooking products are excluded from the 

Recommended TSL. (Joint Agreement, 

No. 12811 at p. 10) However DOE does 

not currently have a definition for 

portable cooking products, nor does the 

Joint Agreement specify one. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed to define a portable 

conventional cooking top as a 

conventional cooking top designed to be 

moved from place to place. 88 FR 6818, 

6829. Using this definition, DOE 

proposed that the proposed standards 

for conventional cooking tops would 

apply to portable models according to 

their means of heating (gas, electric 

open (coil) element, or electric smooth 

element). Id. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposed 

definition for portable conventional 

cooking top and DOE’s proposal to 

include portable conventional cooking 

tops in the existing product classes. Id. 

Stakeholder comments received in 

response to the February 2023 SNOPR 

regarding DOE’s definition of portable 

conventional cooking top and proposal 

to include portable conventional 

cooking tops in the standards were 

consistent with the exclusion of 

portable cooking products specified in 

the Joint Agreement. 

AHAM stated its strong opposition to 

the inclusion of portable cooking tops in 

the scope of energy conservation 

standards for cooking tops because 

AHAM asserted DOE had done no 

analysis on this product type and made 

little mention of them in the February 

2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 

28–29; AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 31–32) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s proposed 

definition is so vague that AHAM 

believes it could include a wide array of 

products such as cooking tops in 

recreational vehicles and tea kettles. 

(Id.) AHAM further requested that if 

portable cooking products are included 

in the scope of this rule, DOE ensure it 

provides the public with notice and an 

opportunity to comment on its analysis 

and proposal. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that it opposes 

including portable cooking tops in the 

scope of the energy conservation 

standards for cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 

10116 at pp. 31–32) AHAM commented 

that there is inadequate data to consider 

standards for portable cooking tops, 

given that the expanded test sample 

contains only one portable cooking top 

with a single cooking zone. (Id.) AHAM 

asserted that given the lack of 

repeatability and reproducibility data on 

portable cooking top units, DOE should 

account for at least a 5.6 percent 

variation between laboratories, as 

shown for an electric unit in DOE’s test 

procedure round robin testing, resulting 

in an IAEC of 216 kWh/year for the 

tested portable unit that does not meet 

the proposed standard for electric 

smooth element cooking tops. (Id.) 

AHAM asserted that portable cooking 

tops may be eliminated from the market 

if the proposed standard is finalized. 

(Id.) 

Consumers’ Research asserted that 

regulating the energy efficiency of 

portable gas cooking tops under the 

same rules as stationary cooking tops is 

unreasonable and recommended that 

DOE consider separate rulemakings for 

each of these product categories. 

(Consumers’ Research, No. 2267 at p. 5) 

Consumers’ Research noted that 

portable gas cooking tops have a 

different range of manufacturing costs 

and constraints than stationary gas 

cooking tops, they use different types of 

natural gas, and the cost structure for 

manufacturing them is different. (Id.) 

Consumers’ Research further 

commented that portable gas cooking 

tops account for only a tiny percentage 

of the energy consumed by all gas 

cooking products and their exclusion 

would not substantially affect the 

projected energy efficiency benefits of 

the proposed rule. (Id.) 

DOE also received eight comments 

from individual commenters who 

expressed concerns about the impact of 

the standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR on barbecues and grills. 

As discussed, the Joint Agreement 

does not specify a definition for portable 

cooking tops. But, based on the 

comments received in response to the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has 

determined that additional clarity is 

warranted regarding the definition of a 

portable conventional cooking top. DOE 

notes that, as proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR, a portable conventional 

cooking top is a category of 

conventional cooking top. DOE defines 

a ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ as a 

category of cooking products that is a 

household cooking appliance consisting 

of a horizontal surface containing one or 

more surface units that utilize a gas 

flame, electric resistance heating, or 

electric inductive heating. This includes 

any conventional cooking top 

component of a combined cooking 

product. 10 CFR 430.2. 

Furthermore, as defined, a 

conventional cooking top is a category 

of cooking product. DOE defines 

‘‘cooking products’’ as consumer 

products that are used as the major 

household cooking appliances. They are 

designed to cook or heat different types 

of food by one or more of the following 

sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or 

microwave energy. Each product may 

consist of a horizontal cooking top 

containing one or more surface units 

and/or one or more heating 

compartments. 10 CFR 430.2. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

Therefore, in order for any product to 

be considered a portable conventional 

cooking top, it must also satisfy the 

definition of conventional cooking top 

and of cooking product, as defined in 10 

CFR 430.2. 

Specifically, DOE does not consider a 

tea kettle to be a major household 

cooking appliance designed to cook or 

heat different types of food. Therefore, 

a tea kettle does not meet the definition 

of a cooking product and cannot be 

considered a portable conventional 

cooking top. 

Regarding a cooking top in a 

recreational vehicle (‘‘RV’’), DOE notes 

that EPCA excludes from coverage those 

consumer products designed solely for 

use in RVs and other mobile equipment. 

42 U.S.C. 6292(a). For example, DOE is 

aware of gas cooking tops that 

incorporate an ignition system that must 

be connected to 12 Volts of direct 

current power, which is commonly used 

in RV battery systems and is not present 

in U.S. households, and has determined 

that these products are designed solely 

for use in RVs and therefore excluded 

from coverage. Regarding the definition 

of portable cooking tops, DOE further 

notes that although a cooking top that is 

not designed solely for use in RVs or 

other mobile equipment may be 

installed within a vehicle, the product 

itself is not necessarily designed to be 

moved from place to place within the 

installed location. Therefore, the mere 

fact of installing a cooking top in an RV 

does not classify the product as a 

portable conventional cooking top. 

Regarding barbecues and grills, DOE 

does not consider these products to be 

used as the main sources of cooking 

within a household. Therefore, DOE 

determines that barbecues and grills do 

not satisfy the definition of cooking 

product. 

To ensure clarity in this regard, in this 

direct final rule, DOE is further 

specifying that portable cooking tops are 

portable indoor conventional cooking 

tops and is defining ‘‘portable indoor 

conventional cooking top’’ as a 

conventional cooking top designed (1) 

for indoor use and (2) to be moved from 

place to place. 

For these reasons, DOE has 

determined that portable indoor 

conventional cooking tops are covered 

products. But as specified in the Joint 

Agreement, DOE is not adopting 

standards for these products in this 

direct final rule. However, gas portable 

indoor conventional cooking tops, as gas 

cooking products, remain subject to the 

existing prohibition on constant burning 

pilot lights. DOE may consider adopting 

amended standards for portable indoor 

conventional cooking tops in a future 

rulemaking. 

See section IV.A.1 of this document 

for discussion of the product classes 

analyzed in this direct final rule. 

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant 

Points of View 

Under the direct final rule provision 

in EPCA, recommended energy 

conservation standards must be 

submitted by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this 

requirement, DOE notes that the Joint 

Agreement included a trade association, 

AHAM, which represents 19 

manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

Joint Agreement also included 

environmental and energy-efficiency 

advocacy organizations, consumer 

advocacy organizations, and a gas and 

electric utility company. Additionally, 

DOE received a letter in support of the 

Joint Agreement from the States of New 

York, California, and Massachusetts 

(See comment No. 12812). DOE also 

received a letter in support of the Joint 

Agreement from the gas and electric 

utility, SDG&E, and the electric utility, 

SCE (See comment No. 12813). As a 

result, DOE has determined that the 

Joint Agreement was submitted by 

interested persons who are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule. 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. Section 

7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section 

IV.B of this document discusses the 

results of the screening analysis for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this rulemaking. For 

further details on the screening analysis 

for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt a new 

or amended standard for a type or class 

of covered product, it must determine 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for consumer conventional 

cooking products, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section IV.C 

of this document and in chapter 5 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to consumer 

conventional cooking products 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

the new or amended standards (2027– 

2056 for all TSLs except the 

Recommended TSL, i.e., TSL 1, and 

2028–2057 for TSL 1).27 The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products purchased in the 30-year 

analysis period. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11447 

28The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

29Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

evolve in the absence of new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet models to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

potential new or amended standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. The NIA spreadsheet model 

(described in section IV.H of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports national energy 

savings in terms of primary energy 

savings, which is the savings in the 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. For natural 

gas, the primary energy savings are 

considered to be equal to the site energy 

savings. DOE also calculates NES in 

terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC 

metric includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 

more complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.28 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for a covered product, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.29 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the 

significance of cumulative FFC national 

energy savings, the cumulative FFC 

emissions reductions, and the need to 

confront the global climate crisis, among 

other factors. 

As stated, the standard levels adopted 

in this direct final rule are projected to 

result in national energy savings of 0.22 

quad, the equivalent of the primary 

annual energy use of 1.5 million homes. 

Based on the amount of FFC savings, the 

corresponding reduction in emissions, 

and the need to confront the global 

climate crisis, DOE has determined the 

energy savings from the standard levels 

adopted in this direct final rule are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The following 

sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of 

potential new or amended standards on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, 

as discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows; 

(2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in 

revenue and income; and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) 

associated with new or amended 

standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the consumer costs and 

benefits expected to result from 

particular standards. DOE also evaluates 

the impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts 

this comparison in its LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating cost 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first year of 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. The LCC savings for the 

considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11448 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 

As discussed in section IV.H of this 

document, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet models to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 

available to DOE, the standards adopted 

in this document would not reduce the 

utility or performance of the products 

under consideration in this rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the 

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of this direct final rule 

to the Attorney General with a request 

that the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on 

the rule in determining whether to 

withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will 

also publish and respond to the DOJ’s 

comments in the Federal Register in a 

separate notice. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) 

The energy savings from the adopted 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The adopted standards are 

likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. DOE 

conducts an emissions analysis to 

estimate how potential standards may 

affect these emissions, as discussed in 

section IV.K of this document; the 

estimated emissions impacts are 

reported in section V.B.6 of this 

document. DOE also estimates the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 

To the extent DOE identifies any 

relevant information regarding 

economic justification that does not fit 

into the other categories described 

previously, DOE could consider such 

information under ‘‘other factors.’’ 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, ONE Gas commented that 

economic justification should be based 

primarily upon consumer LCC savings 

and that economic benefits associated 

with highly speculative health benefits 

should play only a minor role. (ONE 

Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 8–9, 15). 

As described in the preceding 

sections, consumer impacts are one of 

seven factors listed in EPCA for DOE to 

consider when determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified. DOE has and 

will continue to consider all of these 

factors in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effect potential new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

would have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F of this 

document. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with regard to consumer conventional 

cooking products. Separate subsections 

address each component of DOE’s 

analyses, including relevant comments 

DOE received during its separate 

rulemaking to amend the energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products prior to 

receiving the Joint Agreement. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

considered in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards. The national impacts 

analysis uses a second spreadsheet set 

that provides shipments projections and 

calculates national energy savings and 

net present value of total consumer 

costs and savings expected to result 

from potential energy conservation 

standards. DOE uses the third 

spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to 

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/ 

document. Additionally, DOE used 

output from the latest version of the 

U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(‘‘EIA’’) Annual Energy Outlook 

(‘‘AEO’’) for the emissions and utility 

impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11449 

30EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an 

amended or new standard if the Secretary finds 

(and publishes such finding) that interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in any covered 

product type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the United 

States at the time of the Secretary’s finding. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly-available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

product classes, (2) manufacturers and 

industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends, and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of consumer conventional 

cooking products. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the direct final rule 

TSD for further discussion of the market 

and technology assessment. 

1. Product Classes 

The Joint Agreement specifies seven 

product classes for consumer 

conventional cooking products. (Joint 

Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) In 

particular, the Joint Agreement 

recommends separate product classes 

for ranges—a type of combined cooking 

product that combines a conventional 

cooking top and a conventional oven— 

and standalone cooking tops for both 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

and gas cooking tops. (Id.) In this direct 

final rule, DOE is adopting the product 

classes from the Joint Agreement, with 

updated nomenclature that clarifies that 

the ‘‘range’’ product classes refer to the 

cooking top component of any 

combined cooking product, as listed in 

Table IV.1. 

Because combined cooking products 

include a conventional cooking top and/ 

or a conventional oven, the 

conventional cooking top and 

conventional oven standards apply to 

the individual components of the 

combined cooking product. 

DOE further notes that product classes 

established through EPCA’s direct final 

rule authority are not subject to the 

criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

for establishing product classes. 

Nevertheless, in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)—which is applicable 

to direct final rules—DOE has 

concluded that the standards adopted in 

this direct final rule will not result in 

the unavailability in any covered 

product type (or class) of performance 

characteristics, features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States 

currently.30 DOE’s findings in this 

regard are discussed in detail in section 

V.B.4 of this document. 

a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking 

Tops 

As discussed, while DOE notes that 

portable indoor conventional cooking 

tops are covered products, the Joint 

Agreement recommends excluding 

portable cooking products from the 

conventional cooking top and 

conventional oven product classes. 

(Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

proposed standards for conventional 

cooking tops that would apply to 

portable models according to their 

means of heating (gas, electric open 

(coil) element, or electric smooth 

element). 88 FR 6818, 6829. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

sought data and information on its 

initial determination not to differentiate 

conventional cooking tops on the basis 

of portability when considering product 

classes for the February 2023 SNOPR 

analysis. Id. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.008</GPH>

Table IV.l Product Classes for Consumer Conventional Cookin~ Products 

Joint A2reement Product Class Analyzed Product Class 

Electric coil Electric open ( coil) element cooking top 

Electric smooth cooktop Electric smooth element standalone cooking top 

Electric smooth range 

Electric smooth element cooking top component of a 

combined cooking product 

Gas cooktop Gas standalone cooking top 

Gas range Gas cooking top component of a combined cooking product 

Electric ovens Electric oven 

Gas ovens Gas oven 
11450 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

31 In this context ‘‘ASAP et al.’’ refers to a joint 

comment from Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy, Consumer Federation of America, 

National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, and Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance. 

AHAM commented that DOE has 

done no analysis on portable cooking 

tops and made little mention of them in 

the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 

2285 at pp. 28–29) AHAM commented 

that DOE presents no data on several 

critical aspects related to portable 

cooking tops: consumer usage and the 

possibility that the use case for portable 

products is likely different than for 

major appliances in terms of the 

frequency and duration of use; the 

efficiency of portable products; test data 

for portable products and their relative 

efficiency; the similarities and/or 

differences between portable products 

and major appliances to show that it has 

evaluated whether it is justified to apply 

the same standard to both types of 

products or to allow commenters to 

make such an evaluation; or how the 

test procedure would apply to portable 

products, given that the pressure of 

butane and propane canisters do not 

meet the specifications of appendix I1. 

(Id.) AHAM commented that if portable 

cooking products are included in the 

scope of this rule, they should be in a 

separate product class given their 

distinct utility and (for electric 

products) differently rated voltage. (Id.) 

As discussed in section III.A of this 

document, DOE is defining ‘‘portable 

indoor conventional cooking top’’ as a 

conventional cooking top designed (1) 

for indoor use and (2) to be moved from 

place to place. DOE considers this 

definition to apply mainly to ‘‘hot 

plate’’ style cooking products, which are 

typically electric cooking tops. As such, 

DOE is aware of no reason that these 

products cannot be tested to the 

appendix I1 test procedure. However, as 

discussed in section III.A of this 

document, the Joint Agreement specifies 

that portable indoor conventional 

cooking tops are not subject to the 

standards for conventional cooking tops 

adopted in this direct final rule. DOE 

notes however, that gas portable indoor 

conventional cooking tops, as gas 

cooking products, remain subject to the 

existing prohibition on constant burning 

pilot lights. 

2. Technology Options 

In the preliminary market analysis 

and technology assessment, DOE 

identified technology options that 

would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of conventional cooking tops 

and of conventional ovens. These 

technologies encompass all those that 

DOE believes are technologically 

feasible. Section 3.12 of chapter 3 of the 

TSD for this direct final rule includes 

the detailed list and descriptions of all 

technology options identified for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD 

for this direct final rule, DOE has 

performed market research and 

evaluated available consumer 

conventional cooking products to assess 

existing technology options to improve 

efficiency. The results of this research 

are discussed in the following sections 

and in chapter 3 of the TSD for this 

direct final rule. 

a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking 

Tops 

The Joint Agreement recommends 

establishing no standards for electric 

open (coil) element cooking tops. (Joint 

Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) 

For electric open (coil) element 

cooking tops, in the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE did not identify any 

technology options for improving 

efficiency. 88 FR 6818, 6840. DOE 

sought comment on any existing 

technologies that improve the efficiency 

of electric open (coil) element cooking 

tops. Id. 

AHAM agreed with DOE’s 

determination that there are no available 

technology options for improving 

efficiency of electric open (coil) element 

cooking tops and with DOE’s decision 

not to include improved contact 

conductance as a technology option 

based on data and information AHAM 

provided related to pan warpage. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 31) AHAM 

commented that the unavailability of a 

viable technology option to improve 

efficiency is enough on its own to 

support a determination that a standard 

for this product class is not 

technologically feasible. (Id.) 

ASAP et al.31 recommended that DOE 

investigate the design considerations 

that may drive differences in efficiency 

among open element cooking tops. 

(ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 5) ASAP et 

al. commented that, based on DOE’s test 

data, which included a test unit with an 

IAEC of 185 kWh/yr., they believe there 

may be potential efficiency levels 

beyond the baseline level. (Id.) ASAP et 

al. recommended that DOE further 

investigate what may be driving the 

efficiency differences among electric 

open element models or consider an 

efficiency-level approach for this 

product class. (Id.) 

DOE acknowledges the range of IAEC 

values among the electric open (coil) 

element cooking tops in the expanded 

test sample, but DOE notes that it is 

unaware of any technology options that 

can be used to improve these products’ 

efficiency. Therefore, DOE did not 

identify any incremental efficiency 

levels. 

For these reasons, and in accordance 

with the recommendation in the Joint 

Agreement, DOE did not evaluate 

electric open (coil) element cooking tops 

as part of the efficiency analysis for this 

direct final rule. For simplicity, many of 

the tables and headings in the following 

sections of this document omit the 

designation that the electric cooking 

tops for which energy conservation 

standards are being considered have 

‘‘smooth elements.’’ 

b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking 

Tops 

For electric smooth element cooking 

tops, considered the technologies listed 

in Table IV.2. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.009</GPH>

Table IV.2 February 2023 SNOPR Technology Options for Electric Smooth 

Element Cookin To s 

3. Induction elements 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11451 

32 In this direct final rule, DOE defines an HIR 

burner as a burner rated at or above 14,000 Btu per 

hour (‘‘Btu/h’’). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding technology options for electric 

smooth element cooking tops in 

response to the February 2023 SNOPR. 

DOE additionally notes that, 

consistent with the design option 

evaluated with the proposed EL 2 in the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has 

evaluated improved resistance heating 

elements as a design option for electric 

smooth element cooking tops. 88 FR 

6818, 6846. 

Consistent with the February 2023 

SNOPR, in this direct final rule, DOE 

considered the technologies listed in 

Table IV.3 for both electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes. 

c. Gas Cooking Tops 

For gas cooking tops, in the February 

2023 SNOPR, DOE considered the 

technologies listed in Table IV.4. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

evaluated two versions of the optimized 

burner and grate design option, 

representative of a minimum of either 

four or one high input rate burners 

(‘‘HIR burners’’).32 88 FR 6818, 6850– 

6851. 

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

identified an additional type of 

optimized burner and grate design, in 

which a burner with optimized 

turndown capability can be 

implemented in place of a burner with 

‘‘non-optimized’’ turndown capability 

(i.e., the lowest available simmer setting 

is more energy consumptive than 

necessary to hold the test load in a 

constant simmer close to 90 degrees 

Celsius (‘‘°C’’), resulting in significantly 

higher energy consumption than for a 

burner with a simmer setting that holds 

the test load close to that temperature). 

88 FR 50810, 50813. 

For the reasons stated in the February 

2023 SNOPR, in this direct final rule, 

DOE considered the technologies listed 

in Table IV.5 for both gas cooking top 

product classes. 

d. Conventional Ovens 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

stated that it considers that intermittent 

pilot ignition systems would not 

provide energy savings and did not 

consider them as a technology option. 

88 FR 6818, 6841. DOE requested 

information on the potential energy 

savings associated with intermittent 

pilot ignition systems. Id. 

Strauch supported DOE’s decision to 

not consider intermittent/interrupted or 

intermittent pilot ignition systems as a 

technology option for gas ovens, 

asserting that for DOE to conduct its 

own testing on this matter would be a 

waste of taxpayer money. (Strauch, No. 

2263 at p. 2) 

For both gas and electric oven product 

classes, in this direct final rule, DOE 

considered the technologies listed in 

Table IV.6, consistent with the February 

2023 SNOPR. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.010</GPH> ER14FE24.011</GPH> ER14FE24.012</GPH>

3. Induction elements 

Table IV.4 February 2023 SNOPR Technoloe:v Options for Gas Cooking Tops 

1. Catalytic burners 

2. Optimized burner and grate design 

3. Radiant gas burners 

4. Reduced excess air at burner 

5. Reflective surfaces 

3. Radiant as burners 

4. Reduced excess air at burner 

5. Reflective surfaces 
11452 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies 

that are not incorporated in commercial 

products or in commercially viable, existing 

prototypes will not be considered further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service. If it is determined that mass 

production of a technology in commercial 

products and reliable installation and 

servicing of the technology could not be 

achieved on the scale necessary to serve the 

relevant market at the time of the projected 

compliance date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility. If a 

technology is determined to have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility of 

the product to subgroups of consumers, or 

result in the unavailability of any covered 

product type with performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 

are substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States at the 

time, it will not be considered further. 

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is 

determined that a technology would have 

significant adverse impacts on health or 

safety, it will not be considered further. 

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. If a technology has proprietary 

protection and represents a unique pathway 

to achieving a given efficiency level, it will 

not be considered further, due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

In sum, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed in the following sections. 

The subsequent sections include 

comments from interested parties 

pertinent to the screening criteria, 

DOE’s evaluation of each technology 

option against the screening analysis 

criteria, and whether DOE determined 

that a technology option should be 

excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the 

screening criteria. 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

In conducting the screening analysis 

for this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received in 

response to the screening analysis 

conducted for the February 2023 

SNOPR. 

a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking 

Tops 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that it would not 

be practicable to manufacture, install, 

and service halogen heating elements 

for electric smooth element cooking tops 

on the scale necessary to serve the 

relevant market at the time of the 

effective date of a new standard, and 

screened out this technology from 

further consideration. 88 FR 6818, 6842. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

also screened out a subset of lowstandby-loss electronic controls, namely 

those that use ‘‘automatic power-down’’ 

because this type of low-standby-loss 

electronic controls may negatively 

impact product utility. Id. In particular, 

it may result in a loss in the utility of 

the continuous clock display for 

combined cooking products, such as 

ranges. However, it should be noted that 

the other low-standby-loss electronic 

controls such as switch-mode power 

supplies (‘‘SMPSs’’) were still analyzed 

in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

additionally screened out reduced air 

gap as a technology option because DOE 

is aware that the air gaps in 

commercialized radiant heating 

elements are currently as small as is 

practicable to manufacture on the scale 

necessary to serve the cooking products 

market. Id. Furthermore, DOE stated 

that it is not aware of the magnitude of 

potential energy savings from this 

technology. Id. 

DOE requested comment on the 

magnitude of potential energy savings 

that could result from the use of a 

reduced air gap as a technology option. 

Id. DOE sought comment on its 

screening analysis for electric smooth 

element cooking tops and whether any 

additional technology options should be 

screened out on the basis of any of the 

screening criteria in the February 2023 

SNOPR. 

AHAM stated agreement with DOE’s 

determination to screen out halogen 

elements in the screening analysis for 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

based on its determination that it would 

not be practicable to manufacture, 

install, and service halogen heating 

elements on the scale necessary to serve 

the relevant market. (AHAM, No. 2285 

at p. 31) AHAM also stated agreement 

with DOE’s determination to screen out 

a subset of low-standby-loss electronic 

controls that use ‘‘automatic powerdown’’ because they may result in the 

loss in the utility of the continuous 

clock display for combined cooking 

products, such as ranges. (Id.) 

AHAM disagreed with DOE’s 

continued inclusion of low-standby loss 

electronic controls such as SMPS and 

urged DOE to screen out low-standbyloss electronic controls as a technology 

option because such controls ‘‘switch 

the current at high frequencies’’ 

according to DOE, and ranges and 

cooking tops connected to a ground 

fault circuit interrupter (‘‘GFCI’’) and 

operating at high frequencies contribute 

to nuisance tripping, where power is 

removed from the appliance, even when 

no electrical hazard exists. (Id. at pp. 

32–35) AHAM requested that DOE use 

its expertise and resources to properly 

investigate this technological 

incompatibility and advised that if DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.013</GPH>

Table IV.6 Technolo!!V Options for Electric and Gas Ovens 

1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only) 

2. Convection mode capability* 

3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only) 

4. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only) 

5. Improved door seals 

6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls 

7. No oven-door window 

8. Optimized burner and cavity desie:n (gas only) 

9. Oven separator ( electric only) 

10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens only) 

11. Reflective surfaces 

* This technology option was referred to as "forced convection" in the February 2023 SNOPR. In this direct final rule, 

DOE is updating the name of this technology option, as discussed in section IV.B.l.c of this document. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11453 

33 DOE interprets MIL–HDBK–217 as referring to 

Military Handbook: Reliability Prediction of 

Electronic Equipment, last updated in 1995. 

Available at global.ihs.com/doc_

detail.cfm?document_name=MIL-HDBK-217&item_

s_key=00058764. 

34 DOE interprets the Bellcore/Telcordia 

reliability guide as referring to SR–332, Reliability 

Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment, last 

updated in 2011. Available at telecominfo.njdepot.ericsson.net/site-cgi/ido/ 

docs.cgi?ID=SEARCH&DOCUMENT=SR-332#ORD. 

35 ‘‘AGA et al.’’ refers to a joint comment from 

AGA, APGA, NOGA, Spire Inc., Spire Missouri Inc., 

and Spire Alabama Inc. 

continues to consider low-standby-loss 

electronic controls as a feasible 

technology option, the existing nuisance 

tripping problems will get worse. (Id.) 

Strauch commented that SMPSs are 

not as reliable as linear power supplies, 

pointing to MIL–HDBK–217 33 and the 

Bellcore/Telcordia reliability guide 34 as 

evidence. (Strauch, No. 2263 at pp. 2– 

3) Strauch commented that energy 

efficiency requirements are degrading 

lifetimes due to more complex 

electronic controls, SMPSs, and lightweighting. (Id.) 

DOE emphasizes that it only 

considered design options that are 

already demonstrated in cooking 

products available on the market. DOE 

is aware of the potential for ‘‘nuisance 

tripping’’ of GFCI circuit protectors by 

high-frequency components such as 

induction elements. However, DOE 

understands that nuisance tripping can 

generally be mitigated through the use 

of best practices for reducing leakage 

current, such as minimizing electrical 

cable lengths and ensuring that filtered 

and unfiltered cables are separated to 

whatever extent possible to reduce 

leakage current. Additionally, 

optimizing the variable-frequency 

controller power filter to reduce total 

leakage current to levels below the GFCI 

detection limits can further prevent 

GFCI tripping. To the extent that the use 

of additional electronic components is 

needed in conjunction with the use of 

design options with high-frequency 

components (e.g., induction elements), 

and to the extent that such additional 

electronic components are provided in 

electric cooking tops currently on the 

market that make use of such design 

options, DOE’s teardown analysis 

captures any additional cost associated 

with such components. 

DOE notes that despite the potential 

for nuisance tripping, a wide range of 

appliances on the market today, 

including cooking products, implement 

variable-frequency drives in their 

designs. The inclusion of these variablefrequency drive designs in units on the 

market leads DOE to conclude that they 

do not have a significant impact on the 

consumer utility of these products. 

ONE Gas commented that DOE should 

evaluate the potential health and safety 

issues associated with consumer 

conventional cooking product minimum 

efficiency standards by addressing 

electromagnetic field emission hazards 

from induction cooking. (ONE Gas, No. 

2289 at pp. 9–10) 

It is not within DOE’s purview to 

regulate health and safety. In this direct 

final rule analysis, DOE has analyzed 

induction as a technology option insofar 

as it is already widely available on the 

market. Although DOE does not regulate 

electromagnetic field emissions, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

requires industrial, scientific, and 

medical equipment that emits 

electromagnetic energy on frequencies 

within the radio frequency spectrum, 

including induction cooking tops, to 

comply with its regulations at 47 CFR 

part 18 to prevent harmful interference 

to authorized radio communication 

services. Additionally, the U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration specifies 

performance standards for microwave 

and radio frequency emitting products, 

but coverage is limited to microwave 

ovens and thus these standards do not 

apply to consumer conventional 

cooking products, including induction 

cooking tops. 21 CFR 1030.10. 

For this direct final rule, DOE used 

the screening for electric cooking top 

technology options considered in the 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis. 

b. Gas Cooking Tops 

For gas cooking tops, in the February 

2023 SNOPR, DOE screened out 

catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, 

reduced excess air at burner, and 

reflective surfaces. 88 FR 6818, 6842. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

stated that it is aware of a wide range 

of optimized burner and grate designs 

on the market, some of which may 

reduce the consumer utility associated 

with HIR burners and continuous castiron grates. Id. In the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE screened out any 

optimized burner and grate designs that 

would reduce consumer utility by only 

including in its analysis gas cooking 

tops that include at least one HIR burner 

and continuous cast-iron grates. Id. 

DOE sought comment on its screening 

analysis for gas cooking tops and 

whether any additional technology 

options should be screened out on the 

basis of any of the screening criteria in 

the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. Section 

V.B.4 of this document summarizes 

comments that DOE received regarding 

the utility provided by certain 

characteristics of gas cooking tops. 

The National Propane Gas Association 

(‘‘NPGA’’) commented that it agrees 

with the American Public Gas 

Association (‘‘APGA’’) and the 

American Gas Association’s (‘‘AGA’’) 

comments, in which APGA and AGA 

agreed with DOE’s determination that 

no new standards were justified. 

(NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 2–3, 7–8) NPGA 

commented that it agrees with AHAM’s 

prior comments on this rulemaking, in 

which AHAM stated that no significant 

changes have occurred to justify new 

standards since the April 2009 Final 

Rule that determined energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products were not 

justified. (Id.) NPGA commented that 

DOE fails to articulate or demonstrate 

technological changes for gas cooking 

tops that would achieve higher 

efficiencies since the April 2009 Final 

Rule and that would result in significant 

conservation of energy as stated by 

EPCA. (Id.) AGA et al.35 echoed these 

sentiments in response to the August 

2023 NODA. (AGA et al., No. 10112 at 

pp. 3, 11) 

AGA commented that DOE’s 

screening analysis is inconsistent and 

inadequate for use as the primary factor 

determining the minimum efficiency 

level for gas cooking tops. (AGA, No. 

2279 at pp. 43–45) AGA commented 

that gas cooking top design requires a 

complex engineering process to ensure 

the consumer has a product that meets 

all safety standards, meets its required 

purpose (to cook food), is reliable, long 

lasting, and easy to maintain and clean, 

but DOE’s language about improving 

product efficiency through ‘‘optimized 

burner/improved grates’’ is inadequate. 

(Id.) AGA commented that DOE suggests 

that realigning gas burners or moving 

the gas burners closer to the cooking 

utensils will optimize burners, but this 

raises concerns, such as the impact on 

the combustion process, creating hot 

spots on cooking utensils and electronic 

ignition systems, cleaning, and 

addressing changes in fuel gas supply 

(for example, switching from natural gas 

to propane). (Id.) AGA commented that 

more evaluation must be documented 

before DOE’s assumptions can be 

verified as ‘‘efficiency improvements.’’ 

(Id.) 

AGA et al. commented that gas 

cooking tops must meet national 

consensus safety standards for proper 

operation (i.e., proper combustion under 

gas pressure variation) and burner 

characteristics (i.e., burner primary air 

openings, burner port sizing, variety of 

input rates, balanced heat distribution 

on cooking vessels, aesthetics). (AGA et 

al., No. 10112 at pp. 10–11) AGA et al. 

commented that the features that DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11454 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

identified as being responsible for 

increased efficiency (i.e., grate weight, 

flame angle, distance from burner ports) 

should not be mandated which would 

limit the freedom of the gas cooking top 

engineers to design products that are 

safe and fit consumer needs. (Id.) 

ONE Gas commented that DOE should 

evaluate the potential health and safety 

issues associated with consumer 

conventional cooking product minimum 

efficiency standards by addressing burn 

and cooking fire hazards, which are 

likely to differ across design options and 

fuels, and the potential magnitudes of 

such hazards as DOE projections of 

market share shifts would suggest. (ONE 

Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 9–10) ONE Gas 

commented that these potential safety 

and health hazards fit well within 

DOE’s role in minimum efficiency 

standards rulemaking. (Id.) 

Sub-Zero Group, Inc. (‘‘Sub-Zero’’) 

commented that burner spacing between 

grate and vessel must be greater for HIR 

burners to meet critical performance 

and safety requirements; specifically, 

heat distribution and reduction of 

carbon monoxide. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 

at p. 11) Sub-Zero commented that 

reducing burner spacing between burner 

flame and testing vessel can increase 

efficiency, but flame impingement/ 

contact with the grate and vessel causes 

flame quenching (cooling), which 

directly leads to an increase in carbon 

monoxide levels and other combustion 

by-products. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that moving the 

burner closer to the cookware—as 

anticipated by DOE’s ‘‘optimize burners 

and grates’’ technology option—should 

be screened out based on a resulting 

reduction in consumer utility and 

safety. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 22–23) 

AHAM presented a boil-time graph 

showing that water can be brought to a 

boil more efficiently, with a lower Btu/ 

h, by moving the burner closer to the 

cookware, but this design will be 

essentially useless when cooking foods 

that require a spectrum of heat inputs as 

closer burners are unable to adequately 

reduce heat input. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that testing by one of its 

members showed that food cooked with 

only mid-range input rate burners takes 

longer to cook and that mid-input rate 

burners, for some foods, provide a lower 

quality of cooking than HIR burners. 

(Id.) AHAM commented that consumers 

will lose utility associated with quality 

of cooking and speed of cooking as 

manufacturers are forced to homogenize 

their products and provide mid-range 

burners to meet the standard. (Id.) 

AHAM recommended that DOE not 

rely on European designs as it evaluates 

whether ‘‘burner and grate 

optimization’’ is possible while also 

complying with safety standards such as 

combustion limits as European safety 

standard EN 30–1–1 ‘‘Domestic cooking 

appliances burner gas—Part 1–1: 

Safety—General’’ generally has higher 

CO limits than allowed in North 

America per American National 

Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) 

‘‘Household Cooking Gas Appliances’’ 

(‘‘ANSI Z21.1’’), which results in limits 

on-grate weight, flame angle, and 

distance from the burner to the 

cookware. (Id. at p. 37) 

AHAM commented that DOE did not 

provide sufficient descriptions of the 

cooking tops in its test sample to allow 

AHAM to confirm that the units in the 

test sample do not include any 

proprietary designs, components, 

elements, materials, or other intellectual 

property. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 10) 

AHAM asserted that DOE has deviated 

from the data quality standards outlined 

in the Process Rule. (Id. at p. 12) AHAM 

specifically asserted that DOE failed to 

eliminate problematic design options, as 

identified by commenters; did not use 

transparent and robust analytical 

methods; and did not evaluate safety 

pertaining to the updated efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that DOE should review 

these deviations from data quality 

before issuing any final rule. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that, per EPCA, 

DOE should not consider consumervalued features and/or performance 

attributes as technology options. (Id. at 

pp. 12–13) AHAM commented that DOE 

does not have the authority to establish 

standards that would require removal of 

such features and attributes. (Id.) 

AHAM asserted that over the course 

of this rulemaking, DOE has countered 

itself several times regarding which 

EPCA-protected features and 

performance could be eliminated or 

altered to achieve energy reductions. 

(Id. at pp. 16–19) AHAM commented 

that, under EPCA, DOE should not 

consider the removal or reduction of 

significant consumer-valued features 

and performance attributes as 

technology options for improving 

efficiency and that any technology 

options that would have that impact 

should be screened out. (Id.) 

As discussed, DOE has performed 

extensive research to evaluate 

technology changes that have occurred 

since the April 2009 Final Rule, and 

notes that updated analysis depends not 

only on changes in the available 

technologies, but also on the relative 

costs and benefits of implementing 

them. 

DOE acknowledges the safety 

considerations associated with burner 

spacing, emissions, and fire hazards, but 

reiterates that the only optimized burner 

and grate designs evaluated in this 

direct final rule analysis were those 

found through DOE’s testing and 

analysis of a full range of products 

available on the U.S. market to be 

implemented in products already. DOE 

notes that ANSI Z21.1, required by 

many building codes in the United 

States, specifies safety requirements for 

all consumer gas cooking products. 

In response to stakeholder comments 

that optimizing burner and grate designs 

would reduce consumer utility, DOE 

has only included in its direct final rule 

engineering analysis gas cooking tops 

that include multiple HIR burners and 

continuous cast-iron grates. DOE further 

addresses comments related to the 

impact of the standards on cooking top 

utility in section V.B.4 of this 

document. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

screened out from further consideration 

catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, 

reduced excess air at burner, and 

reflective surfaces for gas cooking tops, 

consistent with the February 2023 

SNOPR analysis. 

c. Conventional Ovens 

For the same reasons discussed in the 

SNOPR published on September 2, 2016 

(‘‘September 2016 SNOPR’’), DOE 

screened out added insulation, biradiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no 

oven door window, optimized burner 

and cavity design, and reflective 

surfaces from further analysis for 

conventional ovens in the February 

2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 6818, 6843. 

DOE also stated that it recognizes that 

the estimates for the energy savings 

associated with improved insulation, 

improved door seals and reduced vent 

rate may vary depending on the test 

procedure, and thus screened out these 

technology options from further analysis 

of conventional ovens in the February 

2023 SNOPR. Id. DOE stated that it will 

reevaluate the energy savings associated 

with these technology options if it 

considers performance standards in a 

future rulemaking. Id. 

For the same reasons as discussed 

above for electric smooth element 

cooking tops, in the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE also screened out the use 

of automatic power-down low-standbyloss electronic controls. Id. DOE stated 

that it is aware that the use of automatic 

power-down low-standby-loss 

electronic controls may negatively 

impact product utility. Id. In particular, 

the use of automatic power-down lowstandby-loss electronic controls may 

result in a loss in the utility of the 

continuous clock display for ovens. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11455 

However, it should be noted that the 

other low-standby-loss electronic 

controls such as SMPSs were still 

analyzed. 

DOE continued to seek comment on 

the technology options for conventional 

ovens screened out in the February 2023 

SNOPR. Id. DOE sought comment on its 

screening analysis for conventional 

ovens and whether any additional 

technology options should be screened 

out on the basis of any of the screening 

criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR. 

AHAM noted that additional high 

frequency power use beyond SMPSs in 

an oven, such as low standby loss 

electronic controls, will exacerbate GFCI 

nuisance tripping issues. (Id. at p. 38) 

As discussed previously, DOE is 

aware of the potential for ‘‘nuisance 

tripping’’ of GFCI circuit protectors by 

high-frequency components such as low 

standby loss electronic controls. 

However, DOE understands that 

nuisance tripping can generally be 

mitigated through the use of best 

practices. To the extent that the use of 

additional electronic components is 

needed in conjunction with the use of 

design options with high-frequency 

components (e.g., low standby loss 

electronic controls), and to the extent 

that such additional electronic 

components are provided in electric 

cooking tops currently on the market 

that make use of such design options, 

DOE’s teardown analysis captures any 

additional cost associated with such 

components. 

Strauch commented that DOE should 

not impose forced convection for 

conventional ovens, because many 

consumers may never or rarely use this 

feature. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3) 

AHAM reiterated its comments made 

in response to the September 2016 

SNOPR that forced convection should 

be screened out because the motor 

wattage could negate any potential 

energy savings. (Id.) AHAM further 

commented that convection is not 

appropriate for cooking all food types, 

noting that any covered food loads will 

not benefit from this technology. (Id.) 

DOE notes that the design option 

referred to in the February 2023 SNOPR 

as ‘‘forced convection’’ corresponds to a 

design option wherein the conventional 

oven offers a convection mode to the 

user. Under this design option, the user 

is not required to use the convection 

mode, for instance when cooking 

covered food loads or cakes which do 

not benefit from convection mode. 

However, the user would benefit from 

using the convection mode when baking 

food loads that benefit from an even 

distribution of heat, such as roasting 

vegetables or baking pies, and because 

the use of convection mode results in 

lower energy use, as measured by the 

conventional oven test procedure 

finalized in the test procedure final rule 

published on July 2, 2015 (‘‘July 2015 

TP Final Rule’’). 

However, to ensure full clarity 

regarding this design option and to 

reflect the fact that the use of convection 

mode would not be required by users, 

in this direct final rule, DOE is changing 

the name of this design option to 

‘‘convection mode capability.’’ In the 

following sections where DOE evaluates 

convection mode capability as a 

prescriptive design standard, the 

prescriptive design standard under 

evaluation is a requirement for 

conventional ovens to offer a convection 

mode. 

AHAM also reiterated its comments 

made in response to the September 2016 

SNOPR stating that oven separators 

should be screened out because they are 

not a widely available feature. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that this design 

option essentially relies on consumer 

use of the feature and without knowing 

whether consumers do or will use the 

oven separator, it is impossible to know 

whether the energy savings would be 

realized in the field. (Id.) 

Unless a technology option has 

proprietary protection or represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a given 

efficiency level, the fact that oven 

separators are not widely available has 

no bearing on the screening criteria 

analyzed by DOE and outlined in the 

Process Rule. DOE has determined that 

multiple manufacturers offer oven 

separators and therefore determines that 

oven separators do not represent a 

proprietary technology. AHAM did not 

provide any information that 

corresponds to DOE’s screening criteria 

for technology options, and as such DOE 

is retaining the oven separator 

technology in this direct final rule. 

AHAM reiterated other comments it 

made in response to the September 2016 

SNOPR screening analysis for ovens, 

including: (1) improved door seals 

should be screened out, as further 

improving door seals could lead to a 

loss of performance due to a loss of 

sufficient airflow; and (2) reduced vent 

rates should be screened out as energy 

gains are negligible and DOE is relying 

on very old product designs and a test 

procedure DOE has repealed. (Id.) 

AHAM stated agreement with DOE’s 

screening out of the other technology 

options. (Id. at pp. 38–39) 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

screened out from further consideration 

the same conventional oven technology 

options as in the February 2023 SNOPR 

analysis. DOE notes that the concerns 

expressed by AHAM regarding 

technology options for conventional 

ovens are not applicable at the adopted 

standard levels as specified in the Joint 

Agreement. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

Through a review of each technology, 

DOE tentatively concludes that all of the 

other identified technologies listed in 

section IV.A.2 of this document met all 

screening criteria to be examined further 

as design options in DOE’s direct final 

rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not 

screen out the technology options listed 

in Table IV.7. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11456 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE determined that these 

technology options are technologically 

feasible because they are being used or 

have previously been used in 

commercially-available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety). For 

additional details, see chapter 4 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. There are two elements to 

consider in the engineering analysis; the 

selection of efficiency levels to analyze 

(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product at 

efficiency levels above the baseline. The 

output of the engineering analysis is a 

set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are 

used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 

LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to interpolate to define ‘‘gap 

fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level 

(particularly in cases where the ‘‘maxtech’’ level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

In defining the efficiency levels for 

this direct final rule, DOE considered 

comments it had received in response to 

the efficiency levels proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. 

For this direct final rule, DOE is 

adopting a design-option approach 

supported by testing and supplemented 

by reverse engineering (i.e., physical 

teardowns and testing of existing 

products in the market) to identify the 

incremental cost and efficiency 

improvement associated with each 

design option or design-option 

combination. The design-option 

approach is appropriate for consumer 

conventional cooking products, given 

the lack of certification data to 

determine the market distribution of 

existing products and to identify 

efficiency level ‘‘clusters’’ that already 

exist on the market. Following the 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) 

published on February 12, 2014 

(‘‘February 2014 RFI’’) and the August 

2022 TP Final Rule, DOE also 

conducted interviews with 

manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products to 

develop a deeper understanding of the 

various combinations of design options 

used to increase product efficiency and 

their associated manufacturing costs. 

DOE conducted testing and reverse 

engineering teardowns on products 

available on the market. Because there 

are no performance-based energy 

conservation standards or energy 

reporting requirements for consumer 

conventional cooking products, DOE 

selected test units based on 

performance-related features and 

technologies advertised in product 

literature. 

For each product class, DOE generally 

selects a baseline model as a reference 

point for each class, and measures 

changes resulting from potential energy 

conservation standards against the 

baseline. The baseline model in each 

product class represents the 

characteristics of a product typical of 

that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 

Generally, a baseline model is one that 

just meets current energy conservation 

standards, or, if no standards are in 

place, the baseline is typically the most 

common or least efficient unit on the 

market. 

For each product class for both 

conventional cooking tops and 

conventional ovens, DOE analyzed 

several efficiency levels. As part of 

DOE’s analysis, the maximum available 

efficiency level is the highest efficiency 

unit currently available on the market. 

DOE also defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ 

efficiency level to represent the 

maximum possible efficiency for a given 

product. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.014</GPH>

Table IV. 7 Retained Design Options for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops 

1. Induction elements 

2. Improved resistance elements 

3. Switch-mode power supply 

Gas Cooking Tops 

1. Optimized burner and grate design* 

Conventional Ovens 

1. Convection mode capability 

2. Oven separator (electric only) 

3. Switch-mode power supply 

* As can be achieved by units with multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11457 

a. Conventional Cooking Tops 

Testing 

DOE’s test sample for this direct final 

rule was originally tested in support of 

the February 2023 SNOPR and February 

2023 NODA and included 13 electric 

smooth element cooking tops, the 

electric smooth element cooking top 

portion of 7 conventional ranges, 16 gas 

cooking tops, and the gas cooking top 

portion of 8 conventional ranges for a 

total of 44 conventional cooking tops 

covering all of the product classes 

considered in this analysis. The test unit 

characteristics and appendix I1 test 

results are available in chapter 5 of the 

TSD for this direct final rule. DOE’s 

analysis did not include any energy 

consumption associated with downdraft 

venting systems. 

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

developed performance-based baseline 

efficiency levels for consumer 

conventional cooking tops using the 

measured energy consumption of units 

in the DOE test sample. 88 FR 6818, 

6844. DOE determined the cooking top 

IAEC for each cooking top in the test 

sample based on the water heating test 

procedure adopted in the August 2022 

TP Final Rule. Id. 

AGA et al. stated that it would be 

helpful for stakeholders to have 

information regarding which cooking 

top units included in DOE’s analysis are 

currently available on the market. (AGA 

et al., No. 766 at pp. 3–4) AGA et al. 

requested that DOE provide this 

information through the unit 

identification (i.e., the ‘‘SNOPR Unit 

ID’’) for each cooking top product 

included in DOE’s analysis, which 

would allow stakeholders to confirm 

that DOE’s results accurately reflect the 

product information. (Id.) 

NPGA asserted that DOE is unable to 

confirm that the products evaluated 

remain on the market, as testing 

occurred prior to April 2022 and 

products were purchased prior to May 

2018. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8) NPGA 

asserted that it is not clear whether the 

tested products remain available on the 

U.S. market. (Id.) 

Spire Inc. (‘‘Spire’’) asserted that the 

sample of gas cooking products tested 

by DOE is small and outdated and that 

there is no basis to conclude that the 

products tested are representative of the 

market. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 5–7) 

Spire further commented that the gas 

cooking tops in DOE’s test sample 

products were likely manufactured 

between 2014 and 2018, based on their 

purchase dates. (Id.) Spire stated its 

concern that DOE has not identified the 

tested products that are still on the 

market. (Id.) 

Whirlpool Corporation (‘‘Whirlpool’’) 

commented that DOE cannot rely on 

data gathered from outdated and 

unavailable products that do not 

represent the features, characteristics, 

and performance standards consumers 

expect from gas cooking products. 

(Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 9–10) 

Whirlpool commented that DOE 

wrongly assumes that newer models are 

similar to the tested older models; 

Whirlpool added that its own catalog 

experiences substantial turnover in the 

course of just 5 to 10 years and its older 

models would likely perform differently 

than its newer ones under DOE’s test 

procedure. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s test 

sample comprises several old models, 

some of which are no longer 

commercially available and therefore 

would not be considered 

technologically feasible per sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 8–9) AHAM 

commented that DOE’s continued use of 

this old test sample conflicts with DOE’s 

statement that it considers commercially 

available products or working 

prototypes in its evaluation. (Id.) AHAM 

stated disagreement with DOE’s 

statements in the February 2023 NODA 

that if a product was on the market, it 

can be included in the analysis—that 

could be the case if it can be shown that 

the model was replaced with a similar 

model that retains similar efficiency 

performance and similar technology 

options. (Id.) But, AHAM added, if a 

product is removed from the market and 

no longer commercially available, it 

should be eliminated from the sample 

because it may have been removed for 

reliability or quality issues or consumer 

dissatisfaction. (Id.) AHAM commented 

that without data that indicates why a 

particular model that is no longer 

commercially available should remain 

in the test sample, DOE should remove 

the old models from its test sample and 

ensure that the test sample informing 

this analysis consists only of 

commercially available products (or 

working prototypes). (Id.) 

Although other models in DOE’s test 

sample may no longer be on the market, 

DOE notes that manufacturers of major 

home appliances update their model 

numbers regularly, in some cases as 

frequently as every 1 to 2 years. In 

DOE’s experience of regularly 

monitoring the market for major home 

appliances, including consumer 

conventional cooking products, the 

model number changes that occur from 

year to year in most cases do not reflect 

technological changes that would 

impact the product’s measured energy 

consumption. Regardless, test results for 

models that are discontinued over the 

course of a DOE rulemaking timeline 

remain applicable in conducting the 

analysis in accordance with EPCA 

requirements, because such models 

incorporate technologically feasible 

design options that manufacturers may 

use to achieve the corresponding 

efficiency levels in commercial 

products. 

DOE cannot comment on whether the 

units in the AHAM test sample are 

available on the market because AHAM 

did not provide DOE with model 

number information. However, at the 

time of the direct final rule analysis, 15 

of the 30 units in the expanded test 

sample for which DOE has model 

information and that meet the standards 

finalized in this direct final rule, are 

available for purchase; DOE notes that 7 

of these 15 models have multiple HIR 

burners and continuous cast-iron grates. 

AHAM commented it found confusing 

the addition to DOE’s test sample of 

three new gas cooking top units that did 

not follow the same criteria as in its 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis and the 

conflicting statements and methodology 

DOE employed in the February 2023 

NODA (and in the media). (AHAM, No. 

2285 at pp. 53–54) 

As stated in the February 2023 NODA, 

the additional information was intended 

to clarify the analysis. 88 FR 12603, 

12604. Specifically, DOE provided the 

IAEC values for the three additional 

units to substantiate its statement that 

gas cooking tops that do not include HIR 

burners or continuous cast-iron grates 

have efficiencies higher than the EL 2 

level that DOE defined in the February 

2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 12605. 

Further, DOE published the August 

2023 NODA to provide an updated 

analysis of the gas cooking top market 

in light of the new data provided by 

stakeholders in response to the February 

2023 SNOPR and February 2023 NODA. 

AHAM requested information on 

whether DOE has additional data for the 

units in its test sample that were tested 

as part of the test procedure rulemaking 

and, if so, AHAM requested that DOE 

provide these additional test results. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 9–10) AHAM 

commented that such data could 

illuminate the relevance of test variation 

to DOE’s standards selection. (Id.) 

In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, 

DOE determined that its test results 

demonstrate the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the finalized test 

procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. To the 

extent that any additional tests beyond 

those used in this direct final rule 

analysis were conducted on a given 

cooking top, the results were used in the 

analysis for the August 2022 TP Final 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

36Available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2021-BT-TP-0023/document. 

Rule. Test reports for these tests are 

available in the docket for that 

rulemaking.36

NPGA commented that it does not 

believe DOE’s testing conducted in 

support of the February 2023 SNOPR 

can be relied upon when it was 

conducted prior to publishing the 

August 2022 TP Final Rule and the 

February 2023 Correcting Amendments. 

(NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8) NPGA stated 

that by relying on testing methods 

adopted prior to these changes, DOE’s 

foundation for its test method must be 

called into question. (Id.) 

As discussed, all conventional 

cooking top testing conducted by DOE 

in support of the February 2023 SNOPR, 

and of this direct final rule was 

conducted according to the test 

procedure at appendix I1, as finalized. 

Despite some of the testing occurring 

prior to the publication of the August 

2022 TP Final Rule, all testing was 

confirmed to be compliant with 

appendix I1 as published prior to its 

incorporation in the analysis. DOE 

further notes that neither the errors and 

omissions nor the corrections in the 

February 2023 Correcting Amendments 

affected the substance of the 

rulemaking, or any conclusions reached 

in support of the August 2022 TP Final 

Rule. 88 FR 7846. 

Furthermore, as discussed in the 

August 2023 NODA and later in this 

document, DOE received additional 

stakeholder test data which DOE 

incorporated into its analysis as part of 

the ‘‘expanded data set,’’ which was 

used as the basis for the updated 

efficiency levels presented in the 

August 2023 NODA and analyzed in 

this direct final rule. 

AHAM requested that DOE explain 

why certain gas cooking tops in DOE’s 

test sample have different IAEC values 

in the August 2023 NODA compared to 

the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 

10116 at pp. 4–5) AHAM commented 

that DOE should indicate if the updated 

analysis in the August 2023 NODA was 

based on the updated IAEC values. (Id.) 

AHAM requested that DOE publish a 

response on the docket, prior to a final 

rule, as to whether the updated IAEC 

values are a result of test variation, 

error, or additional testing, and provide 

opportunity for stakeholder comment. 

(Id.) 

DOE appreciates AHAM’s comment 

and notes that as part of its review of the 

engineering analysis for gas cooking 

tops prior to the publication of the 

August 2023 NODA, DOE corrected a 

data processing error that occurred in 

calculating the annual energy 

consumption (‘‘AEC’’) of seven units in 

its test sample. At the time of the 

August 2023 NODA, DOE published the 

full expanded test sample for gas 

cooking tops, including this calculation 

error correction. DOE confirms that the 

analysis for the August 2023 NODA and 

for this direct final rule was based upon 

the IAEC values published in the 

August 2023 NODA. 

AGA et al. commented that the 

standard proposed in February 2023 

SNOPR was based on limited product 

testing unsupported by any other 

existing body of relevant product 

efficiency data. (AGA et al., No. 10112 

at p. 6) AGA et al. commented that, 

given the impact of the expanded data 

set on the baseline level analyzed in the 

August 2023 NODA, as compared to the 

February 2023 SNOPR, it is unclear how 

an even further expanded data set 

would impact the efficiency levels for 

gas cooking tops. (Id.) 

DOE has performed extensive testing 

in support of the energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking tops. 

Furthermore, DOE’s analysis for this 

direct final rule takes into account all 

additional stakeholder test data received 

in response to the February 2023 

SNOPR. DOE determines that its 

expanded test data set is a 

representative sample and sufficient to 

support its analysis for the standards 

adopted in this direct final rule. 

Electric Cooking Tops 

The Joint Agreement recommended a 

standard level for both electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes of 

207 kWh/year that is equivalent to the 

IAEC at EL 1 defined in the August 2023 

NODA and February 2023 SNOPR. 

The baseline IAEC in this direct final 

rule was initially established in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. To establish the 

baseline IAEC values for electric 

cooking tops, in the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE set the baseline cooking 

top IAEC equal to the sum of the 

maximum cooking top AEC observed in 

the dataset and the maximum annual 

combined low-power mode energy 

consumption (‘‘ETLP’’) observed in the 

dataset. 88 FR 6818, 6844. 

DOE then reviewed the AEC and ETLP

values for the electric smooth element 

cooking tops in its test sample and 

identified three higher efficiency levels 

that can be achieved without sacrificing 

clock functionality. Id. at 88 FR 6845. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

defined EL 1 for electric smooth element 

cooking tops based on the low-standbyloss electronic controls design option. 

Id. As discussed above, DOE defined the 

baseline efficiency assuming the highest 

AEC would be paired with the highest 

ETLP observed in its test sample. Id. In 

the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated 

that it is aware of many methods 

employed by manufacturers to achieve 

lower ETLP, including by changing from 

a linear power supply to an SMPS, by 

dimming the control screen’s default 

brightness, by allowing the clock 

functionality to turn off after a period of 

inactivity, and by removing the clock 

from the cooking top altogether. Id. DOE 

defined EL 1 using the lowest measured 

ETLP among the units in its test sample 

with clock functionality, paired with the 

baseline AEC, to avoid any potential 

loss of utility from setting a standard 

based on a unit without clock 

functionality. Id. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

defined EL 2 for electric smooth element 

cooking tops using the lowest measured 

AEC (highest efficiency) among radiant 

cooking tops in its sample and the same 

ETLP as EL 1. Id. DOE noted that, this 

AEC value can also be reached by units 

using induction technology. Id. 

To determine the highest measured 

efficiency for electric smooth element 

cooking tops, ‘‘max tech’’ or EL 3 in the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE calculated 

the sum of the lowest measured AEC in 

its test sample of electric smooth 

element cooking tops, which 

represented induction technology, and 

the same ETLP as EL 1. Id. 

Table IV.8 shows the efficiency levels 

for electric smooth element cooking tops 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11459 

DOE sought comment on the 

methodology and results for the 

proposed baseline and incremental 

efficiency levels for electric cooking 

tops. Id. at 88 FR 6844–6845. 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 

(‘‘Samsung’’) supported DOE’s 

methodology for analyzing AEC and 

ETLP separately when determining the 

efficiency levels for baseline electric 

smooth element cooking tops. 

(Samsung, No. 2291 at p. 2) Samsung 

supported DOE’s proposed efficiency 

levels for electric cooking tops. (Id.) 

Samsung commented that standby 

power is typically consumed by specific 

features (e.g., clocks, timers, electronic 

displays), and that because DOE 

identified low-standby-loss electronic 

controls for EL 1, it is reasonable to 

assume that manufacturers will use the 

lowest level of ETLP to meet EL 1. (Id.) 

Samsung commented that EL 1 also 

avoids consumer utility loss by 

maintaining the clock functionality. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

method for determining the baseline 

efficiency levels for conventional 

cooking tops is flawed because it adds 

active-mode energy use and standbymode energy use from different units, 

which is not a representative approach. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 30–31) AHAM 

commented that product design is 

holistic and theoretical energy use 

should not be assumed based on tests 

from different units as was DOE’s 

method. (Id.) AHAM commented that 

DOE should follow its usual, more 

representative methodology of selecting 

the least efficient single unit, despite the 

flaws resulting from the methodology’s 

basis on a test sample. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that DOE can minimize this 

inherent flaw by ensuring its test sample 

is as broad and representative of the 

market as possible through the inclusion 

of AHAM’s data. (Id.) AHAM added that 

DOE should rectify the lack of 

representativeness of its current sample, 

even with AHAM’s test data included, 

before proceeding to a final rule. (Id.) 

DOE has determined that adding 

active-mode energy use and standbymode energy use from different units to 

determine baseline efficiency levels for 

conventional cooking tops is warranted 

in order to evaluate the most 

conservative baseline efficiency level so 

as to allow manufacturers to preserve 

the utility associated with clock 

functionality. 

AHAM stated its opposition to DOE’s 

proposed standard for smooth electric 

cooking tops and added that it would 

oppose any proposed standard more 

stringent than DOE’s proposed level. (Id. 

at pp. 42–43) However, AHAM 

commented that it does not oppose 

standards for these products so long as 

the standard takes into account test 

procedure variation and the reality that 

manufacturers will not certify products 

at the tested values upon which DOE 

bases its analysis. (Id.) AHAM suggested 

that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level for 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

that is between EL 1 and the baseline, 

and requested that DOE account for test 

variation and conservative rating by 

applying an additional 5 percent to the 

evaluated efficiency level. (Id.) 

In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, 

DOE determined that its test results 

demonstrate the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the finalized test 

procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. DOE 

notes that although it is not including a 

‘‘buffer’’ in its analysis, nothing in 

DOE’s analysis prevents manufacturers 

from choosing to design a buffer into 

their own products’ rated values. 

Regarding AHAM’s suggestion that 

DOE evaluate a gap-fill level, DOE is not 

aware of any design options that would 

justify such an efficiency level. 

As discussed, DOE received 

additional electric smooth element 

cooking top test data from AHAM and 

the Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(‘‘PG&E’’) in response to the February 

2023 SNOPR. In the August 2023 

NODA, DOE stated that these additional 

data are consistent with DOE’s tentative 

determination in the February 2023 

SNOPR regarding efficiency levels for 

these products. 88 FR 50810, 50811. 

Therefore, in the August 2023 NODA, 

DOE maintained the efficiency levels for 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

that were proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR. Id. 

DOE sought comment on the 

efficiency levels for electric smooth 

element cooking tops in the August 

2023 NODA. Id. DOE did not receive 

any such comments. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR and August 2023 

NODA, and consistent with the 

recommendations in the Joint 

Agreement, DOE analyzed for this direct 

final rule the efficiency levels for both 

electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes that were proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR, as shown in 

Table IV.9. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.015</GPH> ER14FE24.016</GPH>

Table IV.8 February 2023 SNOPR Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top 

Efficiency Levels 

Level IAEC 

(kWh/year) 

Baseline 250 

1 207 

2 189 

3 179 

Table IV.9 Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Efficiency Levels 

Level IAEC 

(kWh/year) 

Baseline 250 

1 207 

2 189 

3 179 
11460 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

37As discussed, DOE defines a high input rate 

burner as a burner with an input rate greater than 

or equal to 14,000 Btu/h. 

38 DOE provided this response to AGA et al. on 

April 13, 2023. See docket item No. 1069. 

Gas Cooking Tops 

The Joint Agreement recommended a 

standard level for both gas cooking top 

product classes of 1,770 kBtu/year. 

As discussed, to establish the baseline 

IAEC values for cooking tops, in the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE set the 

baseline cooking top integrated annual 

energy consumption (i.e., IAEC) equal to 

the sum of the maximum cooking top 

active annual energy consumption (i.e., 

AEC) observed in the dataset for the 

analyzed product class and the 

maximum combined low-power mode 

annual energy consumption (i.e., ETLP) 

observed in the dataset for the analyzed 

product class. 88 FR 6818, 6844. 

DOE noted that the efficiency levels 

for gas cooking tops evaluated in the 

February 2023 SNOPR would replace 

the current prescriptive standards for 

gas cooking tops which prohibits the 

use of a constant burning pilot light. Id. 

As such, DOE’s proposed standard for 

gas cooking tops would be only a 

performance standard. DOE noted that 

constant burning pilot lights consume 

approximately 2,000 kBtu/year and even 

the proposed baseline considered 

efficiency level of 1,775 kBtu/year for 

gas cooking tops would not be 

achievable by products if they were to 

incorporate a constant burning pilot 

light. Id. DOE further notes that the 

updated baseline efficiency level of 

1,900 kBtu/year for gas cooking tops 

considered in the August 2023 NODA, 

as described later in this section, would 

also not be achievable by products 

incorporating a constant burning pilot 

light. Therefore, a new performance 

standard for gas cooking tops would 

preclude the possibility of any product 

designs with constant burning pilot 

lights. The existing prescriptive 

standard would remain in place until 

the compliance date of the new and 

amended standards finalized in this 

direct final rule. 

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

considered efficiency levels associated 

with optimized burner and grate design, 

but only insofar as the efficiency level 

was achievable with at least one HIR 

burner 37 and continuous cast-iron 

grates. 88 FR 6818, 6845. DOE stated 

that it is aware that some methods used 

by gas cooking top manufacturers to 

achieve lower AEC can result in a 

smaller number of HIR burners. Id. HIR 

burners provide unique consumer 

utility and allow consumers to perform 

high heat cooking activities such as 

searing and stir-frying. DOE stated that 

it is also aware that some consumers 

derive utility from continuous cast-iron 

grates, such as the ability to use heavy 

pans, or to shift cookware between 

burners without needing to lift them. Id. 

Because of this, in the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE defined the efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops such that all 

efficiency levels are achievable with at 

least one HIR burner and continuous 

cast-iron grates. 

DOE’s testing showed that energy use 

was correlated to burner design and 

cooking top configuration (e.g., grate 

weight, flame angle, distance from 

burner ports to the cooking surface) and 

could be reduced by optimizing the 

design of the burner and grate system. 

Id. DOE reviewed the test data for the 

gas cooking tops in its test sample and 

identified two efficiency levels 

associated with improving the burner 

and grate design that corresponded to 

different design criteria. DOE defined 

EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops using 

the same ETLP as used for the baseline 

efficiency level. 

Table IV.10 shows the efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops evaluated in 

the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 

6846. 

DOE sought comment on the 

methodology and results for the 

proposed baseline and incremental 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops in 

the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. at 88 FR 

6844–6845. 

AGA et al. requested more 

information regarding DOE’s proposal to 

limit the EL 2 level to 1,204 kBtu/year, 

including the specific design changes or 

enhancements to the gas cooking tops 

needed to attain EL 2, the data and 

methodology used to propose EL 2 as 

the max-tech efficiency level for gas 

cooking tops, and DOE’s justification for 

the proposed minimum requirement of 

1,204 kBtu/year. (AGA et al., No. 766 at 

p. 3) 

As noted in the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE’s testing showed that 

energy use was correlated to burner 

design and cooking top configuration 

(e.g., grate weight, flame angle, distance 

from burner ports to the cooking 

surface) and could be reduced by 

optimizing the design of the burner and 

grate system. DOE reviewed the test data 

for the gas cooking tops in its test 

sample and identified two efficiency 

levels associated with improving the 

burner and grate design that 

corresponded to different design 

criteria. 88 FR 6818, 6845. The full 

dataset for gas cooking tops may be 

found in chapter 5 of the direct final 

rule TSD.38

AGA asserted that the February 2023 

SNOPR exceeds DOE’s authority by 

effectively imposing design 

requirements because cooking tops with 

more than one HIR burner cannot 

comply with the proposal and there is 

no real evidence that products with 

even one HIR burner and cast-iron 

grates could satisfy the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

based on issues with the test results. 

(AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 26–28) AGA 

commented that EPCA allows DOE to 

issue a performance standard or a 

design requirement, but not both. (Id.) 

AGA asserted that the February 2023 

SNOPR’s limitation on the number and 

types of burners is both a design and a 

performance standard and is therefore 

unlawful. (Id.) AGA stated that the D.C. 

Circuit adopted a similar rationale in 

Hearth, Patio, & Barbecue Association v. 

DOE, which vacated and remanded 

DOE’s standards for direct heating 

equipment when the court rejected 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.017</GPH>

Table IV.10 February 2023 SNOPR Gas Cooking Top Efficiency Levels 

Level IAEC 

(kBtu/year) 

Baseline 1,775 

1 1,440 

2 1,204 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11461 

39Technical Support Document for Residential 

Cooking Products, Volume 2: Potential Impact of 

Alternative Efficiency Levels for Residential 

Cooking Products. Available at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD0070-0004. 40See www.consumerreports.org. 

41 ‘‘How Many BTUs Are Needed for a Gas Range 

| Whirlpool’’. Available at www.whirlpool.com/blog/ 

kitchen/how-many-btus-for-gas-range.html (last 

accessed August 11, 2023). 

42 In this direct final rule, DOE defines an LIR 

burner as a burner with an input rate below 6,500 

Btu/h. 

DOE’s pretextual argument that it had 

not imposed a design requirement for a 

class of products that were ineligible for 

design requirements. (Id.) AGA noted 

that the rule gave manufacturers the 

option of meeting either DOE’s 

efficiency standard or a third-party 

standard that would have required 

elimination of constant burning pilot 

lights. (Id.) 

DOE reiterates that the standard level 

recommended for gas cooking tops in 

the Joint Agreement and established in 

this direct final rule is a performance 

requirement and not a design standard. 

As stated, this IAEC level can be met by 

a variety of cooking tops with a variety 

of burner input rate configurations. 

Chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct final 

rule includes examples of cooking tops 

in the expanded test sample that meet 

the established performance standard. 

AHAM commented that it noticed an 

error in DOE’s standby power analysis 

for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 

at p. 30) AHAM commented that to 

calculate highest measured efficiency, 

DOE added the lowest measured active 

energy consumption to the highest 

standby energy consumption of all 

units, but that DOE seemed to be adding 

values with different units of measure 

(kBtu + kWh) and that a correct 

calculation would result in an EL 2 of 

1,277 kBtu/year. (Id.) 

DOE appreciates AHAM’s comment 

and notes that this error was corrected 

in its analysis for the August 2023 

NODA. 

AHAM noted that it used DOE’s 

definition of HIR burner—input rate 

greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h— 

but questioned this as the appropriate 

threshold for the definition since DOE 

provided no justification for the 

selection in the form of consumer data 

or other evidence. (AHAM, No. 2285 at 

p. 3) AHAM requested that DOE present 

the data supporting this threshold to 

avoid its analysis being seen as 

arbitrary. (Id.) AHAM commented that it 

presents data on consumer preference 

that show that higher burner input rates 

have consumer utility—specifically, HIR 

burners provide quicker times to boil, 

an important consumer performance 

feature. (Id. at pp. 17–19) 

Whirlpool requested that DOE 

provide data showing that gas cooking 

tops and ranges with a single HIR 

burner of 14,000 Btu/h and above are 

sufficient to meet consumers’ cooking 

needs across all types of gas cooking 

products (e.g., entry-level, mass-market, 

and high-output products). (Whirlpool, 

No. 2284 at pp. 6–7) If this is not 

possible, Whirlpool recommended that 

DOE reconsider the 14,000 Btu 

threshold proposed, as Whirlpool 

asserts that DOE’s own data reveal that 

this is not representative of HIR burners 

on the market, noting that most models 

in DOE’s data set have at least one 

burner with an input rate between 

18,000 Btu/h and 25,000 Btu/h. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented that DOE’s 

proposed definition of HIR burners 

would include models that may not 

adequately perform certain types of 

cooking such as boiling, stir-frying, and 

searing, that is more easily done at high 

temperatures. 

Throughout the history of this 

rulemaking, starting with the February 

2014 RFI, DOE has considered HIR 

burners to be those rated at or above 

14,000 Btu/h. 79 FR 8337, 8340. DOE 

based this determination on the April 

2009 Final Rule and a report published 

as part of the September 1998 Final 

Rule.39 74 FR 16040; 16054 (Apr. 8, 

2009). DOE further notes that the 

cooking product industry has not 

standardized a threshold for HIR 

burners within publicly available 

marketing material. For example, 

Consumer Reports considers high-power 

burners to be those rated above 11,000 

Btu/h.40 According to Whirlpool’s 

website, it considers HIR burners to be 

rated above 12,000 Btu/h.41 DOE 

additionally notes that in a comment 

submitted in response to the February 

2023 SNOPR, Whirlpool referred to 

large burners as those rated above 

15,000 Btu/h. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 

7) Considering the apparent lack of 

consensus regarding a threshold that 

constitutes an HIR burner, and the range 

of possible thresholds apparent through 

publicly available sources, DOE has 

determined the use of 14,000 Btu/h to 

be a reasonable threshold for 

distinguishing HIR burners for the 

purposes of its analysis. 

AHAM recommended that DOE 

evaluate additional gap-fill levels for gas 

cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 44) 

AHAM commented that for these gapfill levels, DOE should also add 5 

percent to the level to account for test 

variation and conservative rating. (Id.) 

Sub-Zero asserted that equity between 

electric and gas cooking top standards 

cannot be attained without a gap fill 

between EL 1 and baseline for gas 

cooking tops. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 

11) 

As discussed, in response to the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE received 

additional gas cooking top test data from 

AHAM and PG&E that prompted DOE to 

review the engineering analysis— 

including the defined efficiency levels— 

for gas cooking tops as presented in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. In the August 

2023 NODA, DOE presented updated 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops 

based on its new expanded data set. 88 

FR 50810, 50812. The following 

paragraphs summarize the key updates 

to the analysis for gas cooking tops that 

DOE presented in the August 2023 

NODA. 

In the August 2023 NODA, the 

updates to the efficiency levels for gas 

cooking tops included (1) an updated 

ETLP estimate at each efficiency level for 

gas cooking tops, equal to the average of 

the non-zero ETLP values measured in 

the expanded test sample; (2) an 

updated definition of the baseline 

efficiency level, based on the least 

efficient AEC value in the expanded test 

sample, which is less efficient than the 

least efficient AEC in the February 2023 

SNOPR test sample; (3) an updated 

definition of EL 1, representing the most 

energy efficient AEC among units with 

multiple HIR burners and continuous 

cast-iron grates that would not preclude 

any combination of other features 

mentioned by manufacturers (e.g., 

different nominal unit widths, sealed 

burners, at least one low input rate 

burner (‘‘LIR burner’’),42 multiple dualstacked and/or multi-ring HIR burners, 

and at least one extra-high input rate 

burner), as demonstrated by products 

from multiple manufacturers in the 

expanded test sample; and (4) an 

updated definition of the max-tech 

efficiency level based on the most 

efficient AEC value in the expanded test 

sample, achievable with multiple HIR 

burners (rather than a single HIR burner, 

used as the basis for the February 2023 

SNOPR) and continuous cast-iron 

grates. Id. 

As discussed in section IV.B of this 

document, to develop incremental 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops, 

DOE analyzed the distribution of AEC 

values among only the cooking tops in 

the expanded test sample that have 

multiple HIR burners and continuous 

cast-iron grates. DOE did not consider 

any efficiency levels that would result 

in the lack of multiple HIR burners or 

continuous cast-iron grates. In the direct 

final rule TSD, DOE presents the results 

for all tested gas cooking tops, because 

these results are also used to develop 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11462 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

43 In this context ‘‘ASAP et al.’’ refers to a joint 

comment from Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy, National Consumer Law Center, and 

Natural Resources Defense Council. 

the market share distributions (see 

section IV.F.8 of this document). 

Table IV.11 shows the efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops that DOE 

evaluated for the August 2023 NODA. 

Id. 

DOE sought comment on the 

methodology and results for the 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops 

presented in the August 2023 NODA. Id. 

at 88 FR 50813. 

ASAP et al.43 commented in support 

of DOE’s updated analysis in the August 

2023 NODA. (ASAP et al., No. 10113 at 

p. 1) ASAP et al. commented in support 

of the updated efficiency levels for gas 

cooking tops to reflect the expanded test 

sample and to ensure the availability of 

models with multiple HIR burners. (Id.) 

WE ACT for Environmental Justice 

(‘‘WE ACT’’) commented that it opposes 

removing the prescriptive standard that 

gas cooking products not be equipped 

with a constant burning pilot light. (WE 

ACT, No. 10114 at p. 6) WE ACT 

commented that whether a gas cooking 

product has a pilot light influences its 

fuel efficiency. (Id.) WE ACT 

commented that because pilot lights 

burn constantly without producing 

usable heat, half of the energy is lost. 

(Id.) 

EPCA defines an energy conservation 

standard as either a performance 

standard which prescribes a minimum 

energy efficiency determined in 

accordance with a test procedure or a 

design requirement. (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)) 

Furthermore, EPCA also contains an 

‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) As 

discussed, DOE notes that constant 

burning pilot lights consume 

approximately 2,000 kBtu/year. 88 FR 

6818, 6844. Therefore, a gas cooking top 

with a constant burning pilot light 

cannot meet the maximum IAEC 

established as the baseline efficiency 

level in this direct final rule of 1,900 

kBtu/year, or the adopted standard level 

of 1,770 kBtu/year. The Joint Agreement 

specifies a performance standard for gas 

cooking tops, which replaces the 

existing design requirement prohibiting 

the use of constant burning pilot lights 

on gas cooking tops with or without an 

electrical supply cord. 

AHAM requested that DOE clarify 

how it determined the 101 kBtu/year 

ETLP value stated to be an outlier, and 

why it ignored the ETLP value of 118 

kBtu/year from PG&E Test Unit #5. 

(AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 9) 

DOE understands AHAM’s comment 

to be referencing a statement in the 

August 2023 NODA indicating that 101 

kBtu/year was the largest ETLP value in 

DOE’s test sample. DOE notes that while 

PG&E Test Unit #5 has a larger ETLP

value, the statement in question was 

referencing the DOE test sample 

analyzed in support of the February 

2023 SNOPR, which did not include 

PG&E Unit #5. DOE received data from 

PG&E after publication of the February 

2023 SNOPR. Nonetheless, DOE’s 

assessment that values of ETLP over 100 

kBtu/year represent outliers remains 

valid when the analysis considers the 

expanded dataset. In response to 

AHAM’s request, DOE is clarifying that 

in this case, DOE considers the ETLP

values of 101 kBtu/year and 118 kBtu/ 

year both to be outliers, as confirmed by 

the interquartile method of identifying 

outliers in which any non-zero value in 

the expanded dataset greater than 68 

kBtu/year would be considered an 

outlier. Furthermore, fewer than 5 

percent of the ETLP values in the 

expanded dataset are greater than 100 

kBtu/year. 

PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE, jointly the 

California Investor-Owned Utilities 

(‘‘CA IOUs’’), commented that DOE 

should revise the ETLP allocated to each 

efficiency level for gas cooking tops to 

more closely align with the 

methodology for electric smooth 

element cooking tops, stating that this 

revision allows for the development of 

more representative efficiency levels 

where the baseline efficiency levels 

represent the maximum observed energy 

consumption while the incremental 

efficiency levels represent annual 

standby energy use improvements. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10106 at pp. 1–3) 

As discussed, in response to the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE received 

additional gas cooking top test data that 

prompted DOE to review the 

engineering analysis for gas cooking 

tops. The updates to the efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops presented in 

the August 2023 NODA reflect this 

additional stakeholder data. DOE has 

determined that the updated ETLP

estimate at each efficiency level for gas 

cooking tops, equal to the average of the 

non-zero ETLP values measured in the 

expanded test sample, is a 

representative allocation of the standby 

mode energy consumption at each 

efficiency level for gas cooking tops. 

DOE notes that it analyzed efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops and electric 

cooking tops separately, in accordance 

with the EPCA requirement that any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards be prescribed for each 

individual product class in order to 

achieve the maximum energy efficiency 

for that product class. (U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) 

AHAM commented that it opposes the 

methodology of combining burners of 

different types from more than one unit 

in the test sample to represent a 

theoretical unit that can meet the 

updated EL 1 for gas cooking tops. 

(AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 6) AHAM 

commented that this methodology is not 

representative of the units in the test 

sample. (Id.) AHAM further commented 

that it opposes combining the active 

mode and standby mode energy 

consumption of different units to define 

efficiency levels. (Id. at p. 9) 

In this direct final rule, DOE 

determines that the methodology of 

combining burners of different types 

from the units in its test sample is an 

appropriate estimation of the potential 

breadth of gas cooking top efficiencies 

available on the market. Although DOE 

acknowledges that a cooking top 

redesign is performed at the product 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.018</GPH>

Table IV.11 August 2023 NODA Gas Cooking Top Efficiency Levels 

Level IAEC 

(kBtu/year) 

Baseline 1,900 

1 1,633 

2 1,343 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11463 

44Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides 

further details on the methodology for determining 

the corresponding average per-burner efficiency 

associated with each defined IAEC level. 

level and not at the burner level, by 

combining burners of various input 

rates and efficiencies in its analysis, 

DOE can simulate the decisions 

manufacturers will need to make as they 

redesign their cooking tops to meet new 

and amended standards. 

The National Association of Home 

Builders (‘‘NAHB’’) commented that 

DOE should further revise the updated 

efficiency levels to reflect additional 

stakeholder feedback and data. (NAHB, 

No. 10115 at p. 2) NAHB commented 

that the updated efficiency levels would 

still increase costs for manufacturers, 

decrease product performance, and 

impact the availability of product 

features that consumers want. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that it is unclear 

how DOE defined efficiency levels and 

how technology options could be 

employed to reach each efficiency level 

presented in the August 2023 NODA. 

(AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 4) AHAM 

commented that DOE has not provided 

descriptions of the combination of 

features present in each unit in its test 

sample. (Id.) AHAM commented that 

the updated efficiency level for gas 

cooking tops is sensitive to variation in 

a limited number of test models. (Id. at 

pp. 6–7) AHAM commented that only 

one gas cooking top in the test sample, 

DOE Test Unit #18, meets the updated 

EL 1 and has multiple HIR burners, 

continuous cast-iron grates, at least one 

LIR burner, multiple dual-stacked and/ 

or multi-ring HIR burners, and at least 

one extra-high input rate burner. (Id.) 

AHAM requested that DOE explain how 

the updated EL 1 for gas cooking tops 

does not preclude any combination of 

certain features and allow opportunity 

to comment after such explanation. (Id.) 

The Joint Agreement recommended 

that DOE establish standards at an 

efficiency level, corresponding to 1,770 

kBtu/year, that was not analyzed in 

either the February 2023 SNOPR or the 

August 2023 NODA. In this direct final 

rule, DOE analyzed this recommended 

efficiency level in place of the EL 1 

defined in the August 2023 NODA and 

determined that an IAEC of 1,770 Btu/ 

year can be achieved by a gas cooking 

top with multiple HIR burners, 

continuous cast-iron grates, at least one 

LIR burner, and does not preclude any 

other combination of consumer-desired 

features. 

In this direct final rule, DOE analyzed 

the gas cooking top efficiency levels for 

both gas cooking top product classes 

shown in Table IV.12. 

Although these efficiency levels and 

the standards adopted in this direct 

final rule are expressed in terms of 

IAEC, it is useful to examine how these 

identified levels relate to performance at 

a per-burner level to help illustrate the 

wide range of burner styles that can be 

implemented in cooking tops that 

achieve the standards adopted by this 

direct final rule. By ‘‘backing out’’ from 

each IAEC value the number of annual 

cooking cycles and representative water 

load mass as defined by the DOE test 

procedure, each IAEC value can be 

associated with a corresponding average 

normalized gas energy consumption 

representative of the Energy Test Cycle 

across all of the burners (i.e., a 

corresponding ‘‘average per-burner 

efficiency’’ that represents the average 

of the energy used per gram (g) of water 

tested, expressed in Btu/g, among all of 

the burners on the cooking top).44 Table 

IV.13 shows the corresponding average 

per-burner efficiency associated with 

each defined IAEC level. For both IEAC 

and the corresponding average perburner efficiency, lower values are 

indicative of higher-efficiency 

performance. 

A wide range of burner styles can 

achieve these efficiency performance 

thresholds at each of the defined 

efficiency levels. Section 5.5.3.1 of 

chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD 

includes a graph in which DOE presents 

the normalized gas energy consumption 

of each gas burner in the expanded test 

sample. This graph demonstrates that a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.019</GPH> ER14FE24.020</GPH>

Table IV.12 Gas Cooking Top Efficiency Levels 

Level IAEC 

(kBtulvear) 

Baseline 1,900 

1 1,770 

2 1,343 

Table IV.13 Corresponding Average Per-Burner Efficiency Associated with Each 

IAEC Level for Gas Cooking Tops 

IAEC Corresponding Average PerLevel (kBtu/year) Burner Efficiency 

(Btu/£)* 

Baseline 1,900 1.57 

1 1,770 1.46 

2 1,343 1.10 

* The standards adopted in this direct final rule are expressed in terms ofIAEC. The average per-burner 

efficiency is shown here to help illustrate the wide range of burner styles that can be implemented in 

cooking tops that achieve the adopted standards. 
11464 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

45 DOE noted that it is aware of a type of selfcleaning oven that uses a proprietary oven coating 

and water to perform a self-clean cycle with a 

shorter duration and at a significantly lower 

temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for 

these ovens, unlike catalytically lined standard 

ovens that provide continuous cleaning during 

normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning 

mode that is user-selectable. 

46Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not 

user-selectable in which a fan circulates air 

internally or externally to the cooking product for 

a finite period of time after the end of the heating 

function. 

47 In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE described 

standard ovens as including ovens with and 

without a catalytic line. For simplicity, DOE is 

using the term ‘‘standard oven’’ in this direct final 

rule. 

48As discussed in section IV.B.1.c of this 

document, DOE renamed the design option from 

‘‘forced convection’’ to ‘‘convection mode 

capability,’’ for clarity. 

wide diversity of gas burner styles 

currently on the market meet the EL 1 

and EL 2 efficiency thresholds shown in 

Table IV.13. Specifically, burners 

meeting the EL 1 efficiency threshold 

(corresponding to the finalized 

standard) span the whole range of tested 

burner input rates (3,900–25,000 Btu/h). 

In other words, on a per-burner basis, 

EL 1 performance can be achieved using 

any combination of low input, medium 

input, or high input rate burners. 

DOE further emphasizes that gas 

cooking top efficiency is calculated 

based on the average normalized gas 

energy consumption among each of the 

burners required to be tested. As such, 

a gas cooking top that achieves EL 1 

performance (corresponding to the 

finalized standard) may include 

individual burners whose normalized 

gas energy consumption is greater than 

1.46 Btu/g, provided that the overall 

average performance across all tested 

burners is no greater than 1.46 Btu/g. 

b. Conventional Ovens 

Analyzed Product Types 

As discussed, the Joint Agreement 

defines two product classes for 

conventional ovens: electric ovens and 

gas ovens. For this direct final rule, DOE 

analyzed four product types per 

conventional oven product class, 

representing different energy use 

profiles and baseline cost, as follows. 

In the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

found that standard ovens and ovens 

using a catalytic continuous-cleaning 

process use roughly the same amount of 

energy. However, self-clean ovens use a 

pyrolytic process that provides 

enhanced consumer utility with lower 

overall energy consumption as 

compared to either standard or 

catalytically lined ovens. Based on 

DOE’s review of gas ovens available on 

the U.S. market, and on manufacturer 

interviews and testing conducted as part 

of the engineering analysis, DOE noted 

in the June 2015 NOPR that the selfcleaning function of a self-clean oven 

may employ methods other than a hightemperature pyrolytic cycle to perform 

the cleaning action.45 80 FR 33030, 

33043. DOE clarified that a conventional 

self-clean electric or gas oven is an oven 

that has a user-selectable mode separate 

from the normal baking mode, not 

intended to heat or cook food, which is 

dedicated to cleaning and removing 

cooking deposits from the oven cavity 

walls. Id. As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE stated that it is not aware 

of any differences in consumer behavior 

in terms of the frequency of use of the 

self-clean function that would be 

predicated on the type of self-cleaning 

technology rather than on cleaning 

habits or cooking usage patterns that are 

not dependent on the type of 

technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804. 

In recent conventional oven test 

procedures, DOE has included methods 

for measuring fan-only mode energy 

use.46 Based on DOE’s testing of 

freestanding, built-in, and slide-in gas 

and electric ovens, DOE observed that 

all of the built-in and slide-in ovens 

tested consumed energy in fan-only 

mode, whereas freestanding ovens did 

not. The energy consumption in fanonly mode for built-in and slide-in 

ovens ranged from approximately 1.3 to 

37.6 watt-hours (‘‘Wh’’) per cycle, 

which corresponds to 0.25 to 7.6 kWh/ 

year. Based on DOE’s reverse 

engineering analyses, DOE noted that 

built-in and slide-in products 

incorporate an additional exhaust fan 

and vent assembly that is not present in 

freestanding products. The additional 

energy required to exhaust air from the 

oven cavity is necessary for slide-in and 

built-in installation configurations to 

meet safety-related temperature 

requirements because the oven is 

enclosed in cabinetry. 

For these reasons, in this direct final 

rule, DOE analyzed four product types 

for each conventional oven product 

class: standard freestanding oven, 

standard built-in/slide-in oven, selfclean freestanding oven, and self-clean 

built-in/slide-in oven.47 However, 

efficiency levels and incremental costs 

were analyzed at the product class level. 

Potential Prescriptive Standards 

There are no current test procedures 

for conventional ovens. Therefore, in 

the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

considered only efficiency levels 

corresponding to prescriptive design 

requirements as defined by the design 

options developed as part of the 

screening analysis (see section IV.B of 

this document): convection mode 

capability,48 the use of an SMPS, and an 

oven separator (for electric ovens only). 

88 FR 6818, 6846. DOE ordered the 

design options by ease of 

implementation. Table IV.14 and Table 

IV.15 define the efficiency levels 

analyzed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

for both electric and gas oven product 

classes, respectively. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.021</GPH>

Table IV.14 February 2023 SNOPR Electric Oven Efficiency Levels 

Level Design Option 

Baseline Baseline 

1 Baseline + SMPS 

2 1 + Convection mode capability 

3 2 + Oven separator 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11465 

49Oven separators are not used in gas ovens 

because they would interfere with the combustion 

air flow and venting requirements for the separate 

gas burners on the top and bottom of the oven 

cavity. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

assumed that a baseline conventional 

oven uses a linear power supply, based 

on DOE’s analysis of these products. Id. 

A linear power supply typically 

produces unregulated as well as 

regulated power. The main 

characteristic of an unregulated power 

supply is that its output may contain 

significant voltage ripple and that the 

output voltage will usually vary with 

the current drawn. The voltages 

produced by regulated power supplies 

are typically more stable, exhibiting less 

ripple than the output from an 

unregulated power supply and 

maintaining a relatively constant voltage 

within the specified current limits of the 

device(s) regulating the power. The 

unregulated portion of a linear power 

supply typically consists of a 

transformer that steps AC line voltage 

down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC 

to DC conversion, and a capacitor to 

produce unregulated, DC output. 

However, there are other means of 

producing and implementing an 

unregulated power supply such as 

transformer-less capacitive and/or 

resistive rectification circuits. Within a 

linear power supply, the unregulated 

output serves as an input into a single 

or multiple voltage-regulating device. 

Such regulating devices include Zener 

diodes, linear voltage regulators, or 

similar components which produce a 

lower-potential, regulated power output 

from a higher-potential DC input. This 

approach results in a rugged power 

supply which is reliable but typically 

has an efficiency of about 40 percent. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

analyzed the use of an SMPS rather than 

a linear power supply for EL 1. Id. at 88 

FR 6847. An SMPS can reduce the 

standby mode energy consumption for 

conventional ovens due to their higher 

conversion efficiencies of up to 75 

percent in appliance applications for 

power supply sizes similar to those of 

conventional ovens. An SMPS also 

reduces the no-load standby losses. In 

the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated 

that it is considering EL 1 to correspond 

to the prescriptive requirement that the 

conventional oven not be equipped with 

a linear power supply. Id. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

analyzed the implementation of 

convection mode capability for EL 2. Id. 

An oven in convection mode uses a fan 

to distribute warm air evenly 

throughout the oven cavity. The use of 

forced circulation can reduce fuel 

consumption by cooking food more 

quickly, at lower temperatures, and in 

larger quantities than a natural 

convection oven of the same size and 

rating. Ovens can use convection 

heating elements in addition to 

resistance and other types of elements to 

speed up the cooking process. By using 

different cooking elements where they 

are most effective, such combination 

ovens can reduce the time and energy 

consumption required to cook food. As 

described further in chapter 5 of the 

TSD for this direct final rule, DOE 

performed testing on consumer 

conventional ovens in support of this 

rulemaking to determine the 

improvement in cooking efficiency 

associated with convection mode. 

Included in the DOE test sample were 

four gas ovens and two electric ovens 

equipped with a convection mode. DOE 

compared the measured energy 

consumption of each oven in bake mode 

to the average energy consumption of 

bake mode and convection mode 

(including energy consumption due to 

the fan motor) as specified in the test 

procedure. The relative decrease in 

active mode energy consumption 

resulting from the implementation of a 

convection mode in consumer 

conventional ovens ranged from 3.5 to 

7.5 percent depending on the product 

class. In the February 2023 SNOPR, 

DOE stated that it is considering EL 2 to 

correspond to the prescriptive 

requirement that the conventional oven 

be equipped with a convection fan. Id. 

This prescriptive requirement would 

not preclude a non-convection mode 

being offered selectable by the 

consumer. Id. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, for EL 

3, DOE analyzed the use of an oven 

separator, for electric ovens only.49 Id. 

For loads that do not require the entire 

oven volume, an oven separator can be 

used to reduce the cavity volume that is 

used for cooking. With less oven volume 

to heat, the energy used to cook an item 

would be reduced. The oven separator 

considered here is the type that can be 

easily and quickly installed by the user. 

The side walls of the oven cavity would 

be fitted with ‘‘slots’’ that guide and 

hold the separator into position, and a 

switch to indicate when the separator 

has been installed. The oven would also 

require at least two separate heating 

elements to heat the two cavities. 

Different pairs of ‘‘slots’’ would be 

spaced throughout the oven cavity so 

that the user could select different 

positions to place the separator. In the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that 

it is considering EL 3 to correspond to 

the prescriptive requirement that the 

electric oven be equipped with an oven 

separator. Id. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR and the 

August 2023 NODA, DOE sought 

comment on the definitions of the 

proposed efficiency level for 

conventional ovens. Id. at 88 FR 50810, 

50813. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

consider a prescriptive requirement for 

built-in and slide-in oven fan runtimes. 

(CA IOUs, No. 2278 at pp. 4–6) The CA 

IOUs commented that a strong 

correlation exists between fan-only 

mode duration and energy use, and 

noted that DOE found a considerable 

variation in fan run times and energy 

use, ranging from 4.5 to 69 minutes and 

1 Wh to 32 Wh, respectively. (Id.) The 

CA IOUs recommended that DOE set a 

prescriptive limit of fan-only mode run 

time that could potentially save 

approximately 7 kWh/year per built-in/ 

slide-in oven, comparable to the 12 

kWh/year that DOE’s proposed 

prescriptive standard would attain. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented that many 

commercially available ovens have fans 

that operate for a shorter time while 

providing the same function as fans 

with a longer runtime. (Id.) The CA 

IOUs asserted that a prescriptive 

standard limiting fan runtime is 

technologically feasible and costeffective for consumers, because it 

requires only the implementation of a 

timer, and could yield savings of up to 

$13 in lifetime operating costs. (Id.) The 

CA IOUs also asserted that a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.022</GPH>

Table IV.15 February 2023 SNOPR Gas Oven Efficiency Levels 

Level Design Option 

Baseline Baseline 

1 Baseline + SMPS 

2 1 + Convection mode capability 

Note: All efficiency levels for gas ovens include the current prescriptive requirement prohibiting the use of a constant 

burning pilot light. 
11466 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

50 In this direct final rule, DOE refers to the 

integrated annual oven energy consumption using 

the abbreviation IEAO, rather than IAEC, to 

emphasize the difference between the IAEC values 

used for conventional cooking tops which were 

measured according to appendix I1 and the energy 

use values used for conventional ovens which were 

measured according to the test procedure as 

finalized in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 

prescriptive runtime requirement is 

unlikely to increase manufacturer 

impacts significantly because 

manufacturers can readily incorporate 

the timer into any product redesign to 

comply with the proposed standards. 

(Id.) The CA IOUs additionally 

recommended DOE consider relevant 

safety standards and requirements when 

setting a fan runtime limit. (Id.) 

DOE notes that limiting fan runtime 

in conventional ovens could introduce a 

potential safety hazard for certain 

designs by limiting the amount of 

cooling after a cooking cycle. DOE lacks 

sufficient data at this time to 

characterize the design tradeoffs and 

energy consumption impacts of specific 

fan runtimes to allow it to establish a 

prescriptive requirement for fan 

runtimes. 

In this direct final rule, DOE is 

analyzing, consistent with the 

recommendations in the Joint 

Agreement, the efficiency levels for 

conventional ovens that were proposed 

in the February 2023 SNOPR. Table 

IV.16 and Table IV.17 define the 

efficiency levels for the electric and gas 

oven product classes, respectively. 

Energy Consumption of Each Efficiency 

Level 

DOE’s test sample for conventional 

ovens included one gas wall oven, seven 

gas ranges, five electric wall ovens, and 

two electric ranges for a total of 15 

conventional ovens covering all of the 

considered product types. DOE 

conducted testing according to the test 

procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP 

Final Rule. 88 FR 6818, 6847. However, 

as discussed previously, DOE is 

considering only efficiency levels 

corresponding to prescriptive design 

requirements, consistent with the Joint 

Agreement. In order to develop 

estimated energy consumption rates for 

each efficiency level, in support of the 

Energy Use analysis (see section IV.E of 

this document), DOE based its analyses 

on the data measured using the nowrepealed test procedure. 

The integrated annual oven energy 

consumption (‘‘IEAO’’ 50) for each 

consumer conventional oven in DOE’s 

test sample was broken down into its 

component parts: the energy of active 

cooking mode, EAO (including any selfcleaning operation); fan-only mode, for 

built-in/slide-in ovens as applicable; 

and combined low-power mode, ETLP

(including standby mode and off mode). 

Because oven cooking efficiency and 

energy consumption depend on cavity 

volume, DOE normalized IEAO to a 

representative cavity volume of 4.3 

cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’) using the relationship 

between energy consumption and cavity 

volume discussed in chapter 5 of the 

TSD for this direct final rule to allow for 

more direct comparison between units 

in the test sample. 

As part of the September 2016 

SNOPR, DOE developed energy 

consumption values for the baseline 

efficiency levels for conventional ovens 

considering both data from the previous 

standards rulemaking and the measured 

energy use for the test units. DOE 

conducted testing for all units in its test 

sample to measure integrated annual 

energy consumption, which included 

energy use in active mode (including 

fan-only mode) and standby mode. 81 

FR 60784, 60814. As discussed in the 

September 2016 SNOPR, DOE 

augmented its analysis of electric 

standard ovens by considering the 

energy use of the electric self-clean 

units in its test sample, adjusted to 

account for the differences between 

standard-clean and self-clean ovens. 

Augmenting the electric standard oven 

dataset with self-clean models from the 

DOE test sample allowed DOE to 

consider a wider range of cavity 

volumes in its analysis. 81 FR 60784, 

60815. To establish the estimated energy 

consumption values for the baseline 

efficiency levels for conventional ovens, 

DOE first derived a relationship 

between energy consumption and cavity 

volume. Using the slope from the 

previous rulemaking, DOE selected new 

intercepts corresponding to the ovens in 

its test sample with the lowest 

efficiency, so that no ovens in the test 

sample were cut off by the baseline 

curve. DOE then set baseline standby 

energy consumption for conventional 

ovens equal to that of the oven 

(including the oven component of a 

combined cooking product) with the 

highest standby energy consumption in 

DOE’s test sample to maintain the full 

functionality of controls for consumer 

utility. In response to the September 

2016 SNOPR, DOE did not receive 

comment on the baseline efficiency 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.023</GPH> ER14FE24.024</GPH>

Table IV.16 Electric Oven Efficiency Levels 

Level Design Option 

Baseline Baseline 

1 Baseline + SMPS 

2 1 + Convection mode capability 

3 2 + Oven separator 

Table IV.17 Gas Oven Efficiency Levels 

Level Design Option 

Baseline Baseline 

1 Baseline + SMPS 

2 1 + Convection mode capability 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11467 

levels considered for conventional 

ovens. 85 FR 80982, 81011. 

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

expanded its sample size of 

conventional ovens and ranges used to 

determine the baseline ETLP value and 

calculated the baseline ETLP using the 

highest combined low-power mode 

measured power on a conventional 

range with a linear power supply. 88 FR 

6818, 6848. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

developed the incremental efficiency 

levels for each design option identified 

as a result of the screening analysis. Id. 

at 88 FR 6849. DOE then developed 

estimated energy consumption values 

for each efficiency level based on test 

data collected according to the earlier 

version of the oven test procedure 

established in the July 2015 TP Final 

Rule. Id. 

DOE’s testing of freestanding, built-in, 

and slide-in installation configurations 

for gas and electric ovens revealed that 

built-in and slide-in ovens have a fan 

that consumes energy in fan-only mode, 

whereas freestanding ovens do not have 

such a fan. For the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE developed separate energy 

consumption values for each 

installation configuration. Id. 

DOE sought comment on the 

methodology and results for the 

estimated energy use of each proposed 

efficiency level for conventional ovens. 

Id. at 88 FR 6850. 

AHAM commented that DOE is 

inappropriately relying on the 

withdrawn test procedure for 

conventional ovens to calculate savings 

attributable to design standards for 

ovens. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 16) 

AHAM commented that DOE 

determined that the withdrawn rule 

may not accurately represent consumer 

use because it favors conventional ovens 

with low thermal mass and does not 

capture cooking performance-related 

benefits due to increased thermal mass 

of the oven cavity. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that DOE should not 

calculate savings based on a test it has 

determined does not produce 

representative results and that any 

analysis produced using an 

unrepresentative test procedure is likely 

to be inaccurate. (Id.) 

DOE notes that because there is 

currently no established test procedure 

for conventional ovens, DOE is using 

the best data it has available at this time, 

which is based on its previous test 

procedure, to estimate savings 

associated with the prescriptive 

standards. DOE further notes that the 

prescriptive standards for conventional 

ovens recommended in the Joint 

Agreement and adopted in this direct 

final rule are based on an SMPS design 

option, and that energy use of this 

design option does not depend upon the 

thermal mass of the oven. 

For the reasons presented in the 

February 2023 SNOPR, in this direct 

final rule, DOE is estimating the energy 

consumption values for each efficiency 

level for conventional ovens using the 

methodology described in the February 

2023 SNOPR. 

Energy Use Versus Cavity Volume 

The energy consumption of the 

conventional oven efficiency levels 

detailed above are predicated upon 

ovens with a cavity volume of 4.3 ft3. 

Based on DOE’s testing of gas and 

electric ovens and discussions with 

manufacturers, energy use scales with 

oven cavity volume due to larger ovens 

having higher thermal masses and larger 

volumes of air (including larger vent 

rates) than smaller ovens. Because the 

DOE test procedure adopted in the July 

2015 TP Final Rule for measuring IEAO

uses a fixed test load size, larger ovens 

with higher thermal mass will have a 

higher measured IEAO. As a result, DOE 

considered available data to characterize 

the relationship between energy use and 

oven cavity volume. Additional 

discussion of DOE’s derivation of the 

oven IEAO versus cavity volume 

relationship is presented in chapter 5 of 

the TSD for this direct final rule. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, the availability 

and timeliness of purchasing the 

product on the market. The cost 

approaches are summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the present case, DOE conducted 

the analysis using physical and catalog 

teardowns. The resulting bill of 

materials provides the basis for the 

manufacturer production cost (‘‘MPC’’) 

estimates. 

To account for manufacturers’ profit 

margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the 

manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The 

resulting manufacturer selling price 

(‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the 

manufacturer distributes a unit into 

commerce. DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed 

by publicly-traded manufacturers 

primarily engaged in appliance 

manufacturing and whose combined 

product range includes consumer 

conventional cooking products. See 

chapter 12 of the TSD for this direct 

final rule for additional detail on the 

manufacturer markup. 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

In defining the baseline and 

incremental MPCs for each defined 

product class for this direct final rule, 

DOE considered comments it had 

received in response to the costefficiency results presented in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. 

a. Electric Cooking Tops 

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

developed the cost-efficiency results for 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

shown in Table IV.18. 88 FR 6818, 6850. 

DOE developed incremental MPCs 

based on manufacturing cost modeling 

of units in its sample featuring the 

design options. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11468 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

maintained the incremental MPCs for 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

that were proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR. 88 FR 50810, 50813. 

DOE requested comment, data, and 

information on the incremental 

manufacturer production costs for 

electric smooth element cooking tops in 

the February 2023 SNOPR and the 

August 2023 NODA. 88 FR 6818, 6852, 

88 FR 50810, 50813. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding electric smooth element 

cooking top MPCs in response to the 

February 2023 SNOPR or the August 

2023 NODA. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

updated the underlying raw material 

prices used in its cost model to reflect 

current raw material prices, which 

resulted in slight changes to the MPC 

values in comparison to the values used 

in the February 2023 SNOPR. Table 

IV.19 presents the incremental MPCs for 

each efficiency level analyzed in this 

direct final rule for both electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes. 

DOE notes that the estimated 

incremental MPCs are equivalent for 

standalone cooking tops and the 

cooking top component of combined 

cooking products because none of the 

considered design options would be 

implemented differently as a function of 

installation configuration. 

b. Gas Cooking Tops 

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

developed the cost-efficiency results for 

gas cooking tops shown in Table IV.20. 

88 FR 6818, 6850. DOE developed 

incremental MPCs based on 

manufacturing cost modeling of units in 

its sample featuring the design options. 

DOE sought comment on the 

manufacturer production costs for gas 

cooking tops used in the analysis for the 

February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 6818, 

6852. 

AGA commented that DOE has 

considered the design costs of 

redesigning cooking tops to meet the 

TSL but does not consider other costs to 

manufacturers and consumers if the 

design of the product must completely 

change to allow for features that keep a 

product competitive. (AGA, No. 2279 at 

p. 43) 

As discussed, DOE determines the 

incremental MPCs based on 

manufacturing cost modeling of the 

units in its test sample featuring the 

designated design options. DOE notes 

that it considers the overall cost to 

manufacturers and consumers as part of 

its LCC and PBP analysis and the MIA 

analysis, as discussed in the following 

sections of this document. 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

revisit the February 2023 SNOPR MPC 

for EL 2 gas cooking tops, stating that 

the incremental cost from EL 1 is not 

zero. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 22) AHAM 

commented that a cooking top with a 

full range of burner capacities, 

including an LIR burner, will cost more 

than one with a homogenized set of 

mid-input range burners. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that in the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE determined 

that there is not likely to be a cost 

difference between EL 1 and EL 2, but 

in order to retain product performance 

(e.g., the ability to cook at lower 

temperatures), AHAM commented that a 

stacked burner would be an option. (Id. 

at p. 37) AHAM noted that DOE has not 

considered the cost associated with the 

stacked burner design configuration, but 

if DOE continues to consider EL 2, it 

must take into account the cost 

associated with stacked burners at EL 2. 

(Id.) 

DOE defined EL 2 for gas cooking tops 

based on the AEC of the least energyconsumptive cooking top in its 

expanded test sample that contained 

multiple HIR burners and continuous 

cast-iron grates, regardless of specific 

burner configuration other than input 

rate. This efficiency level does not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.025</GPH> ER14FE24.026</GPH> ER14FE24.027</GPH>

Table IV.18 February 2023 SNOPR Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops 

Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs 

Level IAEC Incremental MPC 

(kWhlvear) (2021$) 

1 207 $2.17 

2 189 $11.05 

3 179 $263.19 

Table IV.19 Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops Incremental Manufacturer 

Production Costs 

Level IAEC Incremental MPC 

(kWhlvear) (2022$) 

1 207 $1.99 

2 189 $15.82 

3 179 $251.34 

Table IV.20 February 2023 SNOPR Gas Cooking Tops Manufacturer Production 

Costs 

Level IAEC Incremental MPC 

(kBtu/year) (2021$) 

1 1,440 $12.41 

2 1,204 $12.41 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11469 

presume the use of dual-stacked 

burners, and for that reason DOE did not 

include the cost of improving the 

efficiency of dual-stacked burners in an 

optimized burner and grate design in 

the incremental MPC for gas cooking 

tops at EL 2. However, as discussed in 

section IV.C.1.a of this document, DOE 

recognizes the value in maintaining the 

product performance attributes of all the 

features that manufacturers stated that 

consumers value, including dualstacked HIR burners, and notes that the 

standards adopted in this direct final 

rule, which represent EL 1 for gas 

cooking tops, would allow 

manufacturers to continue to offer this 

burner design. 

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

updated the MPCs for gas cooking tops 

based on its understanding of the 

different types of burner and grate 

redesigns likely to be needed to achieve 

each of the revised efficiency levels, 

using the same underlying data as was 

used in the February 2023 SNOPR. Id. 

DOE stated that its analysis shows 

that the incremental MPC developed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR, $12.41, 

representing the optimized burner and 

grate design option (e.g., grate weight, 

flame angle, distance from burner ports 

to the cooking surface), accurately 

represents the cost to redesign a unit at 

EL 1 to meet EL 2. Id. 

To develop the incremental MPC 

between the updated baseline and EL 1 

for the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

analyzed the test data in its expanded 

test sample which shows that cooking 

tops at the baseline efficiency level 

typically include one or two burners 

with ‘‘non-optimized’’ turndown 

capability (i.e., the lowest available 

simmer setting is more energy 

consumptive than necessary to hold the 

test load in a constant simmer close to 

90 °C, resulting in significantly higher 

energy consumption than for a burner 

with a simmer setting that holds the test 

load close to that temperature). Id. In 

the August 2023 NODA, DOE estimated 

that the cost of implementing a burner 

with optimized turndown capability in 

place of a burner with non-optimized 

turndown capability to meet typical 

efficiencies available in the market is 

smaller than the cost of an entirely 

redesigned burner and grate system 

(associated with the incremental MPC 

between EL 1 and EL 2). Id. DOE 

estimated that the percentage of burners 

with non-optimized turndown 

capability (defined empirically from the 

expanded test sample as burners with a 

specific energy use of more than 1.45 

Btu per gram of water in the test load, 

as measured by appendix I1) in the 

baseline units in its expanded test 

sample ranged from 16 percent (one out 

of six burners) to 40 percent (two out of 

five burners). Id. In order to 

conservatively assess the incremental 

MPC between baseline and EL 1, DOE 

defined it as 40 percent of the $12.41 

incremental MPC between EL 1 and EL 

2, or $4.96. Id. 

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

developed the incremental MPCs 

relative to the baseline associated with 

the updated efficiency levels shown in 

Table IV.21. Id. 

DOE requested comment, data, and 

information on the incremental 

manufacturer production costs for gas 

cooking tops in the August 2023 NODA. 

Id. at 88 FR 50813–50814. 

The CA IOUs commented that while 

simmer setting optimization would 

improve IAEC, it is unclear why any 

design changes would result in the 

$4.96 increase to the MPC modeled in 

the August 2023 NODA. (CA IOUs, No. 

10106 at pp. 3–5) The CA IOUs asserted 

that four of the nine gas cooking tops 

tested by PG&E had at least one burner 

with a non-optimized simmer setting for 

at least one test run, and that two of 

these gas cooking tops also had another 

burner with the same power ratings, 

where one burner could simmer water at 

temperatures less than 91 °C and the 

other burner could not. (Id.) The CA 

IOUs commented that, based on this 

data, manufacturers could implement an 

optimized simmer setting for all burners 

using the hardware already installed on 

the optimized burner of the same power 

rating and that new hardware or 

software that would increase the MPC 

should not be necessary. (Id.) The CA 

IOUs commented that DOE should 

consider the incremental MPC at EL 1 

to be negligible or substantially lower 

than $4.96 to reflect the lack of costs 

associated with optimizing the simmer 

setting, or clarify its determination of 

the cost of an optimized simmer setting. 

(Id.) 

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

defined the incremental MPC between 

baseline and EL 1 based on the cost of 

implementing a burner with optimized 

turndown capability in place of a burner 

with non-optimized turndown 

capability to meet typical efficiencies 

available in the market. 88 FR 50810, 

50813. As discussed in the August 2023 

NODA, DOE clarifies that it considers 

burners with ‘‘non-optimized’’ 

turndown capability to be burners for 

which the lowest available simmer 

setting is more energy consumptive than 

necessary to hold the test load in a 

constant simmer close to 90 °C, 

resulting in significantly higher energy 

consumption than for a burner with a 

simmer setting that holds the test load 

close to that temperature. Id. DOE 

empirically defines a non-optimized 

burner as having a specific energy use 

of more than 1.45 Btu per gram of water 

in the test load, as measured by 

appendix I1. Id. In its analysis for the 

August 2023 NODA, DOE estimated that 

the percentage of burners with nonoptimized turndown capability in the 

baseline units in its expanded test 

sample ranged up to 40 percent (two out 

of five burners). Id. DOE therefore 

estimated the incremental MPC between 

baseline and EL 1 to be 40 percent of the 

incremental MPC between EL 1 and EL 

2 that corresponds to a whole burner 

and grate system re-design associated 

with the optimized burner and grate 

design option. Id. In response to the CA 

IOUs’ comment, DOE has reviewed its 

test sample and the additional 

stakeholder data it has received from 

PG&E, and notes that it has not found 

information to suggest that burners with 

optimized turndown capability already 

exist within a cooking top alongside 

burners of the same input rate with nonoptimized turndown capability for all 

input rates and unit configurations. 

Therefore, DOE does not have sufficient 

information to conclude that there is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.028</GPH>

Table IV.21 August 2023 NODA Updated Gas Cooking Tops Incremental 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

Level IAEC Incremental MPC 

(kBtulvear) (2021$) 

1 1,633 $4.96 

2 1,343 $17.37 
11470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

zero or negligible incremental cost 

between a non-optimized burner and a 

burner with optimized turndown 

capability, as suggested by the CA IOUs. 

AHAM commented that it opposes the 

incremental MPCs for gas cooking tops 

between EL 1 and EL 2 presented in the 

August 2023 NODA. (AHAM, No. 10116 

at pp. 21–23) AHAM commented that 

redesign of one burner requires 

consideration of the overall system, 

grate redesign and testing in order to 

assure performance, safety, and air 

quality issues. (Id.) AHAM commented 

that DOE should account for total 

system redesign in determining the 

costs associated with EL 1 and EL 2. 

(Id.) 

ONE Gas commented that DOE should 

clarify how it calculated increased 

MPCs for gas cooking tops even though 

the updated efficiency levels in the 

August 2023 NODA are less stringent. 

(ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) 

DOE notes that the MPCs for gas 

cooking tops evaluated in the February 

2023 SNOPR effectively corresponded 

to a whole burner and grate system redesign based on its evaluation of the 

optimized burner and grate design 

option. 88 FR 6818, 6851. By contrast, 

in the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

updated the MPCs for gas cooking tops 

based on its understanding of the 

different types of burner and grate 

redesign likely to be needed to achieve 

each of the revised ELs, using the same 

underlying data as was used in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 50810, 

50813. Specifically, in the August 2023 

NODA, DOE noted that the incremental 

MPC developed for EL 1 in the February 

2023 SNOPR (corresponding to a 

reduction of approximately 300 kBtu/ 

year) accurately represented the cost to 

redesign a unit at the August 2023 

NODA EL 1 to meet EL 2 (corresponding 

to an approximately equivalent 

reduction of around 300 kBtu/year). As 

discussed, in the August 2023 NODA, 

DOE defined the incremental MPC 

between baseline and EL 1 to be 40 

percent of the incremental MPC 

between EL 1 and EL 2, based on its 

estimation of the percentage of burners 

with non-optimized turndown 

capability in the baseline units in its 

expanded test sample. Id. Also, as 

discussed in the August 2023 NODA, 

DOE estimated that the cost of 

implementing a burner with optimized 

turndown capability in place of a burner 

with non-optimized turndown 

capability to meet typical efficiencies 

available in the market is smaller than 

the cost of an entirely redesigned burner 

and grate system. Id. As such, DOE 

determined that a total system redesign 

would not be necessary to achieve EL 1 

as presented in the August 2023 NODA. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

updated the incremental MPCs 

methodology for gas cooking tops based 

on its understanding of the different 

types of burner and grate redesigns 

likely to be needed to achieve the 

updated efficiency levels analyzed in 

this direct final rule, using the same 

underlying data as was used in the 

February 2023 SNOPR and August 2023 

NODA. DOE revised the incremental 

MPC between baseline and EL 1 to 

reflect the updated efficiency level 

recommended by the Joint Agreement. 

In this direct final rule, DOE determines 

that all baseline gas cooking tops in the 

expanded test sample can achieve EL 1 

by optimizing a single non-optimized 

burner, representing typically 20 

percent of burners (one out of five). 

Therefore, DOE defined the incremental 

MPC between baseline and EL 1 as 20 

percent of the previously established 

incremental MPC between EL 1 and EL 

2. For this direct final rule, DOE used 

the analytical approach to determine the 

MPC increase between baseline and EL 

2 that was presented in the August 2023 

NODA. 

Finally, for this direct final rule, DOE 

updated the underlying raw material 

prices used in its cost model to reflect 

current raw material prices, which 

resulted in slight changes to the MPC 

values in comparison to the values used 

in the August 2023 NODA. Table IV.22 

presents the incremental MPCs for each 

efficiency level analyzed in this direct 

final rule for both gas cooking top 

product classes. DOE notes that the 

estimated incremental MPCs are 

equivalent for standalone cooking tops 

and the cooking top component of 

combined cooking products because 

none of the considered design options 

would be implemented differently as a 

function of installation configuration. 

c. Conventional Ovens 

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

developed the cost-efficiency results for 

each conventional oven product class 

based on manufacturing cost modeling 

of units in its sample featuring the 

design options. DOE noted that the 

estimated incremental MPCs are 

equivalent for the freestanding and 

built-in/slide-in oven product classes 

and for the standard and self-clean oven 

product classes because none of the 

considered design options would be 

implemented differently as a function of 

installation configuration or self-clean 

functionality. Id. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding conventional oven MPCs in 

response to the February 2023 SNOPR 

or the August 2023 NODA. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

updated the underlying raw material 

prices used in its cost model to reflect 

current raw material prices, which 

resulted in slight changes to the MPC 

values in comparison to the values used 

in the February 2023 SNOPR. The 

incremental MPCs for the electric and 

gas oven product classes are shown in 

Table IV.23 and Table IV.24, 

respectively. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.029</GPH>

Table IV.22 Gas Cooking Tops Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs 

Level IAEC Incremental MPC 

(kBtu/year) (2022$) 

1 1,770 $2.67 

2 1,343 $18.72 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11471 

51Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

52U.S. Census, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey 

(ARTS), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors. 

53 2017 Economic Census, Selected sectors: 

Concentration of largest firms for the U.S. Data table 

available at www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/ 

econ/economic-census/naics-sector-44-45.html. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., manufacturer 

markups, retailer markups, distributor 

markups, contractor markups) in the 

distribution chain and sales taxes to 

convert the MSP estimates derived in 

the engineering analysis to consumer 

prices, which are then used in the LCC 

and PBP analysis and in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. At each 

step in the distribution channel, 

companies mark up the price of the 

product to cover business costs and 

profit margin. 

As part of the analysis, DOE identifies 

key market participants and distribution 

channels. For consumer conventional 

cooking products, the main parties in 

the distribution chain are (1) the 

manufacturers of the products; (2) the 

retailers purchasing the products from 

manufacturers and selling them to 

consumers; and (3) the consumers who 

purchase the products. 

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

developed baseline and incremental 

markups for each actor in the 

distribution chain. Baseline markups are 

applied to the price of products with 

baseline efficiency, while incremental 

markups are applied to the difference in 

price between baseline and higherefficiency models (the incremental cost 

increase). The incremental markup is 

typically less than the baseline markup 

and is designed to maintain similar perunit operating profit before and after 

new or amended standards.51 For the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE relied on 

economic data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau to estimate average baseline and 

incremental markups.52

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding the markups analysis 

conducted for the February 2023 

SNOPR. The approach for used for this 

direct final rule is the same approach 

DOE had used for the February 2023 

SNOPR analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AHAM commented that DOE 

uses different markups from 

manufacturers to end customers for the 

base case and for any costs added to 

meet proposed standards, average, and 

incremental markups respectively. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 50–51) AHAM 

commented that it, AHRI, and others 

have disputed this distinction over 

many years and rulemakings. (Id.) In 

particular, AHAM stated that its 

comments on DOE’s 2015 NOPR for 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Residential Dishwashers contain quotes 

from actual retailers about their actual 

practices, quotes that directly contradict 

a DOE process that is based on no 

empirical evidence and on discredited 

theory. (Id.) AHAM commented that 

DOE cannot ignore data that contradicts 

its analysis and must take these 

comments into account or its analysis 

will lack the support of facts and a 

resulting standard could be arbitrary 

and capricious. (Id.) 

DOE’s incremental markup approach 

assumes that an increase in operating 

profits, which is implied by keeping a 

fixed markup when the product price 

goes up, is unlikely to be viable over 

time in a reasonably competitive market 

like household appliance retailers. The 

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’) 

reported by the 2017 Economic Census 

indicates that the household appliance 

stores sector (NAICS 443141) is a 

competitive marketplace.53 DOE 

recognizes that actors in the distribution 

chains are likely to seek to maintain the 

same markup on appliances in response 

to changes in manufacturer selling 

prices after an amendment to energy 

conservation standards. However, DOE 

believes that retail pricing is likely to 

adjust over time as those actors are 

forced to readjust their markups to reach 

a medium-term equilibrium in which 

per-unit profit is relatively unchanged 

before and after standards are 

implemented. 

DOE acknowledges that markup 

practices in response to amended 

standards are complex and varying with 

business conditions. However, DOE’s 

analysis necessarily considers a very 

simplified and hypothetical version of 

the world of appliance retailing: 

namely, a situation in which nothing 

changes except for those changes in 

appliance offerings that occur in 

response to amended standards. 

Obtaining data on markup practices in 

the situation described above is very 

challenging. Hence, DOE continues to 

maintain that its assumption that 

standards do not facilitate a sustainable 

increase in profitability is reasonable. 

AGA asserted that DOE’s data source 

for developing markups in the February 

2023 SNOPR for consumer cooking 

products differs from the data source 

used for rulemakings for other products. 

(AGA, No. 2279 at p. 40) 

DOE’s methodology for estimating 

markups is product specific and 

dependent on the type of distribution 

channels through which products move 

from manufacturers to purchasers. DOE 

uses the best available data to estimate 

markups for identified distribution 

channels for a given product. In the case 

of consumer cooking products, DOE 

identified the retail channel as the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.030</GPH> ER14FE24.031</GPH>

Table IV.23 Electric Oven Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs 

Level Design Option Incremental MPC 

(2022$) 

1 Baseline + SMPS $1.99 

2 1 + Convection mode capability $36.70 

3 2 + Oven separator $71.89 

Table IV.24 Gas Oven Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs 

Level Design Option Incremental MPC 

(2022$) 

1 Baseline + SMPS $1.99 

2 1 + Convection mode capability $26.23 
11472 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

54Available at www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/ 

surveys/2019-residential-appliance-saturationstudy. 

55Available at www.pecanstreet.org/dataport. 

56U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2015 RECS Survey Data (2019). Available 

at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/ 

2015/. RECS 2015 is based on a sample of 5,686 

households statistically selected to represent 118.2 

million housing units in the United States. 

Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/. 

57 DOE was unable to use the frequency of use to 

calculate the annual energy consumption using a 

bottom-up approach, as data in RECS did not 

include information about the duration of a cooking 

event to allow for an annual energy use calculation. 

58U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2020 RECS Survey Data (2023). Available 

at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/ 

2020/. 

dominant distribution channel and 

estimated markups using data from 

Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail 

Trade Survey (ARTS). 

Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD 

provides details on DOE’s development 

of markups for consumer conventional 

cooking products. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of consumer 

conventional cooking products at 

different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. single-family homes and multifamily residences, and to assess the 

energy savings potential of increased 

consumer conventional cooking 

products efficiency. The energy use 

analysis estimates the range of energy 

use of consumer conventional cooking 

products in the field (i.e., as they are 

actually used by consumers). The 

energy use analysis provides the basis 

for other analyses DOE performed, 

particularly assessments of the energy 

savings and the savings in consumer 

operating costs that could result from 

adoption of new or amended standards. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

used 2019 California Residential 

Application Saturation Study 

(‘‘RASS’’) 54 and 2021 field-metered data 

from the Pecan Street Project.55 From 

the Pecan Street data, DOE performed 

an analysis of 39 households in Texas 

and 28 households in New York to 

develop average annual energy 

consumption values for each State. In 

the absence of similar field-metered data 

for other States, DOE weighted the 

average annual energy use results from 

California (from CA RASS 2019), Texas, 

and New York by the number of 

households in each State to estimate an 

average National energy use value more 

representative than any individual State 

measurement. DOE calculated a 

household-weighted National value 

using the average values from Texas, 

New York, and California and estimates 

for the number of households in each 

State from the U.S. Census. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

established a range of energy use from 

data in the EIA’s 2015 Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS 

2015’’).56 RECS 2015 does not provide 

the annual energy consumption of 

cooking tops, but it does provide the 

frequency of cooking top use.57 DOE 

was unable to use the frequency of use 

to calculate the annual energy 

consumption using a bottom-up 

approach, as data in RECS 2015 did not 

include information about the duration 

of a cooking event to allow for an 

annual energy use calculation. DOE 

relied on California RASS 2021 and 

Pecan Street Project data to establish the 

average annual energy consumption of a 

conventional cooking top and a 

conventional oven. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding the energy use analysis 

conducted for the February 2023 

SNOPR. The approach used for this 

direct final rule is largely the same 

approach DOE had used for the 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AHAM questioned whether 

DOE uses RECS end-use energy 

consumption estimates and has 

reviewed the underlying analyses and 

equations for allocating energy by end 

use and the related regression or similar 

statistics for RECS consumption data. 

(AHAM, No. 127 at p. 3) 

DOE’s energy use analysis for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products does not make use of end-use 

energy consumption estimates in RECS. 

As described in the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE used available fieldmetered data to estimate the average 

annual energy use of consumer 

conventional cooking products. DOE 

used RECS responses on the frequency 

of use to establish a range of energy 

consumption values. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AHAM commented that DOE 

should retain its current estimate of 

cooking cycles since DOE has computed 

an average number of cooking cycles per 

year at 418 based on the 2015 RECS, 

which essentially agrees with RECS 

2020 data and points to stability in 

cooking behavior over the past several 

years. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 44) 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, AGA et al. commented that DOE 

should update the consumer sample to 

the more recent and larger RECS 2020 

sample rather than rely on RECS 2015 

as done in the February 2023 SNOPR 

and August 2023 NODA. (AGA et al., 

No. 10112 at pp. 11–12) 

DOE agrees with AHAM’s assessment 

that the average number of cooking 

cycles remains similar between RECS 

2015 and RECS 2020 reflecting stability 

in cooking behavior in recent years. For 

this direct final rule, DOE has updated 

the consumer sample to RECS 2020 to 

estimate the variability in cooking 

energy use.58

AHAM noted that while there may 

have been some change in cooking at 

home during the COVID pandemic, it is 

too soon to determine whether there is 

a long-term trend for more home-cooked 

meals and DOE should wait to assess 

this until the next round of standards 

when more data will be available. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 44) 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

includes more recent 2022 Pecan Street 

Project data in its estimate of the annual 

energy use for consumer conventional 

cooking products. These data are less 

influenced by the impacts of the COVID 

pandemic and more representative of 

current cooking product usage. 

Whirlpool commented that by 

lessening the utility of consumer 

conventional cooking products such as 

gas stoves and ranges, the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

may have the unintended effect of 

influencing consumers to maintain the 

level of cooking performance they 

require through less efficient, less cost 

effective, and more carbon-intensive 

alternatives (e.g., eat outside of the 

home more frequently, cater food, or use 

an outdoor grill). (Whirlpool, No. 2284 

at pp. 7–8) 

As discussed in section V.B.4 of this 

document, DOE has determined that the 

standards adopted in this direct final 

rule will not lessen the utility or 

performance of the consumer 

conventional cooking products under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

Therefore, DOE does not expect and is 

unaware of any data to indicate that the 

performance standards adopted in this 

direct final rule would cause a 

meaningful change in consumers’ 

cooking behavior. 

NPGA recommended that DOE adopt 

kBtu/year as the unit of measure for 

reporting the energy use of both electric 

and gas cooking products, which is 

consistent with DOE’s use of FFC 

analysis in the rule, to better facilitate 

the comparison between fuel types. 

(NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 3, 6) 

For the purposes of calculating 

consumer costs in the LCC, DOE’s 

presentation of site energy consumption 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11473 

59Crystal BallTM is commercially available 

software tool to facilitate the creation of these types 

of models by generating probability distributions 

and summarizing results within Excel, available at 

www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/ 

crystalball/overview/index.html (last accessed July 

28, 2023). 

values for electric and gas products is 

aligned with the measure of energy 

consumption most familiar to 

consumers and the unit used for 

calculating consumer energy bills. For 

example, electric utilities typically 

charge by the kWh rather than by kBtu. 

DOE also notes that the units used in 

presenting energy consumption align 

with the energy units used in the DOE 

test procedure. DOE continues to 

calculate and present full-fuel cycle 

national energy savings for gas and 

electric in quadrillions of Btus 

(‘‘quads’’). 

Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD 

provides details on DOE’s energy use 

analysis for consumer conventional 

cooking products. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. The effect of new or amended 

energy conservation standards on 

individual consumers usually involves a 

reduction in operating cost and an 

increase in purchase cost. DOE used the 

following two metrics to measure 

consumer impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

new or amended standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of consumer conventional 

cooking products in the absence of new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards. In contrast, the PBP for a 

given efficiency level is measured 

relative to the baseline product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of housing units. As 

stated previously, DOE developed 

household samples from the 2020 RECS. 

For each sample household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the consumer conventional cooking 

products and the appropriate energy 

price. By developing a representative 

sample of households, the analysis 

captured the variability in energy 

consumption and energy prices 

associated with the use of consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding the LCC analysis conducted 

for the February 2023 SNOPR. The 

approach used for this direct final rule 

is largely the same approach DOE had 

used for the February 2023 SNOPR 

analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AHAM commented that RECS 

is a comprehensive and extremely 

valuable survey program providing 

many important insights, but DOE 

pushes the survey data further than it 

can support and in doing so, DOE is 

introducing ‘‘outlier’’ values into its 

LCC analysis and then assuming that 

those outlier households with very high 

energy consumption are just as likely as 

any other household to select an energy 

efficient appliance absent standards 

(i.e., in the no-new-standards case). 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 51–52) AHAM 

commented that the effect of this 

process is that the mean (or average) 

LCC savings at any standard level are 

significantly higher than the median 

(50th percentile) where ordinarily in a 

statistical distribution, the mean and the 

median should be relatively close 

together. (Id.) AHAM stated that it and 

AHRI have commented on this and 

some of the reasons to treat the RECS 

data with caution in numerous 

rulemakings and both commenters and 

others have proposed that DOE use 

medians rather than means to avoid 

many of the random assignment and 

data issues. (Id.) 

DOE notes that there is no indication 

that any of households in the RECS 

sample represent non-valid data that 

should be excluded as an outlier. 

Excluding minimum and maximum 

values from the field-based usage 

statistics would result in a less accurate 

representation of the actual energy 

consumption patterns exhibited by 

households participating in the survey. 

However, as a standardized approach, 

DOE presents all statistic results of LCC 

savings in chapter 8 of its TSD (i.e., 

histograms or box plots). This approach 

allows stakeholders to observe the full 

range of LCC savings and understand 

the distribution of results, enabling a 

more informed evaluation of the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

standards. In addition, DOE’s decision 

on amended standards is not solely 

determined by (mean) LCC savings. 

While LCC savings play a role, they may 

be considered alongside other critical 

factors, including the percentage of 

negatively impacted consumers, the 

simple payback period, and the overall 

impact on manufacturers. 

Strauch recommended that DOE 

explicitly address dual-fuel ranges. 

(Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3) 

DOE notes that RECS 2020 identifies 

households with dual-fuel ranges and 

those consumers are included in the 

LCC analysis. Those households are 

represented in the analysis as having a 

gas cooking top and an electric oven. 

Inputs to the LCC calculation include 

the installed cost to the consumer, 

operating expenses, the lifetime of the 

product, and a discount rate. Inputs to 

the calculation of total installed cost 

include the cost of the product—which 

includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, 

retailer and distributor markups, and 

sales taxes—and installation costs. 

Inputs to the calculation of operating 

expenses include annual energy 

consumption, energy prices and price 

projections, repair and maintenance 

costs, product lifetimes, and discount 

rates. Inputs to the payback period 

calculation include the installed cost to 

the consumer and first year operating 

expenses. DOE created distributions of 

values for product lifetime, discount 

rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities 

attached to each value, to account for 

their uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 

Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and consumer 

conventional cooking products user 

samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte 

Carlo approach is implemented in MS 

Excel together with the Crystal BallTM

add-on.59 The model calculated the LCC 

for products at each efficiency level for 

10,000 housing units per simulation 

run. The analytical results include a 

distribution of 10,000 data points 

showing the range of LCC savings for a 

given efficiency level relative to the nonew-standards case efficiency 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11474 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

60Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for 

Technological Change in Regulatory Impact 

Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. LBNL– 

6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

Berkeley, CA. April 2013. Available at 

escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1. 

61Electric household ranges, ovens, surface 

cooking units and equipment PPI series ID: 

PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

62 Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking 

units, and equipment PPI series ID; 

PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

distribution. In performing an iteration 

of the Monte Carlo simulation for a 

given consumer, product efficiency is 

chosen based on its probability. If the 

chosen product efficiency is greater than 

or equal to the efficiency of the standard 

level under consideration, the LCC 

calculation reveals that a consumer is 

not impacted by the standard level. By 

accounting for consumers who already 

purchase more-efficient products, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits 

from increasing product efficiency. DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for 

consumers of consumer conventional 

cooking products as if each were to 

purchase a new product in the first year 

of required compliance with new or 

amended standards. For TSLs other than 

TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL detailed 

in the Joint Agreement), new and 

amended standards apply to consumer 

conventional cooking products 

manufactured 3 years after the date on 

which any new or amended standard is 

published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) 

Therefore, DOE used 2027 as the first 

year of compliance with any new or 

amended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products for TSL 

2 and 3. For TSL 1, DOE used 2028 as 

the first year of compliance for all 

product classes as specified for the 

Recommended TSL in the Joint 

Agreement. 

Table IV.25 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD 

and its appendices. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described previously (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for 

baseline products and higher-efficiency 

products, because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

products. 

Economic literature and historical 

data suggest that the real costs of many 

products may trend downward over 

time according to ‘‘learning’’ or 

‘‘experience’’ curves. Experience curve 

analysis implicitly includes factors such 

as efficiencies in labor, capital 

investment, automation, materials 

prices, distribution, and economies of 

scale at an industry-wide level.60 In the 

experience curve method, the real cost 

of production is related to the 

cumulative production or ‘‘experience’’ 

with a manufactured product. To project 

future product prices, DOE examined 

the electric and gas cooking products 

Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’). These 

indices, adjusted for inflation, show a 

declining trend. DOE performed a 

power-law fit of historical PPI data and 

cumulative shipments. For the electric 

cooking products price trend, DOE used 

the ‘‘Electric household ranges, ovens, 

surface cooking units and equipment’’ 

PPI for 1967–2022.61 For the gas cooking 

product price trend, DOE used the ‘‘Gas 

household ranges, ovens, surface 

cooking units and equipment’’ for 1981– 

2022.62

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.032</GPH>

Table IV.25 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis* 

Inputs Source/Method 

Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales 

Product Cost tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to project 

product costs. 

Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means 2022. Assumed 

Installation Costs no change with efficiency level, except for increased costs associated with the 

installation of an induction unit relative to baseline smooth element cooking tops. 

Annual Energy Use The average energy use is based on estimates from field-metered data. 

Variability: Based on RECS 2020. 

Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute data for 2022. 

Energy Prices Natural Gas: Based on EIA's Natural Gas Navigator for 2022. 

Variability: Regional energy prices by Census Division. 

Enern:v Price Trends Based on AE02023 price projections. 

Baseline repairs costs derived from available literature. Assumed no change with 

Repair and efficiency level, except for increased costs associated with the repair of an 

Maintenance Costs induction unit relative to baseline smooth element cooking tops. Assumed 

maintenance costs do not varv with efficiency level. 

Product Lifetime Average: 16.8 years for electric units and 14.5 years for gas units 

Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be 

Discount Rates used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. 

Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer 

Finances. 

Compliance Date 2028 for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2027 for all other TSLs 

* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections 

following the table or in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11475 

63 Dale, L., C. Antinori, M. McNeil, James E. 

McMahon, and K.S. Fujita. Retrospective evaluation 

of appliance price trends. Energy Policy. 2009. 37 

(2) pp. 597–605. doi.org/10.1016/ 

j.enpol.2008.09.087. 

64Taylor, M., C.A. Spurlock, and H.-C. Yang. 

Confronting Regulatory Cost and Quality 

Expectations. An Exploration of Technical Change 

in Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards. 

2015. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), 

Berkeley, CA (United States). Report No. LBNL– 

1000576. Available at www.osti.gov/biblio/1235570/ 

(last accessed June 30, 2023). 

65Taylor, M. and K.S. Fujita. Accounting for 

Technological Change in Regulatory Impact 

Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 2013. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL), Berkeley, 

CA (United States). Report No. LBNL–6195E. 

Available at escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4 

(last accessed July 20, 2023). 

66Available at thestc.com/STRates.stm (last 

accessed on August 17, 2023). 

67RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical 

Cost Data (2021). Available at rsmeans.com (last 

accessed on June 23, 2022). 

regarding the methodology for 

calculating consumer product costs that 

was presented in the February 2023 

SNOPR. The approach used for this 

direct final rule is largely the same 

approach DOE had used for the 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AHAM commented that it and 

several other stakeholders have showed 

in previous rulemakings there is little to 

no theoretical underpinning for why an 

‘‘experience or learning curve’’ should 

exist that would reduce the expected 

extra manufacturing costs required to 

meet proposed standard levels, what 

functional form it should take and, 

even, whether it should be a continuous 

function. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 51) 

AHAM commented that the experience 

or learning curve is merely an empirical 

relationship, and as such, there needs to 

be a clear connection between the actual 

products in question and the data used 

to develop the relationship. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that analogs are of highly 

questionable applicability, that when 

the data takes a new shape, DOE must 

adjust its equations to reflect that 

change, and that continuing to use old 

data and equations simply to create a 

longer time series is not acceptable. (Id.) 

DOE notes that there is considerable 

empirical evidence of consistent price 

declines for appliances in the past few 

decades. Several studies examined 

refrigerator retail prices during different 

periods of time and showed that prices 

had been steadily falling while 

efficiency had been increasing, for 

example Dale et al. (2009) 63 and Taylor 

et al. (2015).64 As mentioned in Taylor 

and Fujita (2013),65 Federal agencies 

have adopted different approaches to 

account for ‘‘the changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ Given the limited 

data availability on historical 

manufacturing costs broken down by 

different components, DOE utilized the 

PPI published by the BLS as a proxy for 

manufacturing costs to represent the 

analyzed product as a whole. While 

products may experience varying 

degrees of price learning during 

different product stages, DOE modeled 

the average learning rate based on the 

full historical PPI series for ‘‘electric 

household ranges, ovens, surface 

cooking units and equipment’’ and ‘‘gas 

household ranges, ovens, surface 

cooking units and equipment’’ to 

capture the overall price evolution in 

relation to the cumulative shipments for 

electric and gas products, respectively. 

DOE also conducted sensitivity analyses 

that are based on a particular segment 

of the PPI data for household 

refrigerator manufacturing to investigate 

the impact of alternative product price 

projections (low price learning and high 

price learning) in the NIA of this direct 

final rule. For details of the sensitivity 

results, see appendix 10C of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

ASAP et al. noted that DOE may be 

overestimating the price of EL 3 for 

electric smooth element cooking tops. 

ASAP et al. expect that the price trend 

for units with induction technology will 

decline faster than the overall price 

trend associated with electric cooking 

products. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 

4) 

DOE appreciates the comment on 

price learning for induction technology. 

DOE acknowledges that technologies at 

different maturity levels may experience 

different rates of price learning. 

However, the type of data required to 

develop a component-based price 

learning for cooking tops using 

induction technology is currently very 

limited. Hence, DOE applied the same 

learning rate to all electric cooking 

products in this direct final rule 

analysis. 

AGA asserted the equipment costs 

presented in the February 2023 SNOPR 

do not reflect the costs of products 

available on the market as compared to 

‘‘Material costs’’ listed in RS Means or 

products available from online retailers. 

(AGA, No. 2279 at p. 40) 

Equipment costs estimated in the 

February 2023 SNOPR characterize the 

retail price of products at each 

efficiency level, holding all other 

product characteristics and features 

constant, in the compliance year. The 

analysis explicitly attempts to estimate 

costs for each EL at scale, as if each EL 

were the new baseline product. This 

may differ from actual market 

conditions where more efficient options 

may be bundled with other nonefficiency related features or not 

currently manufactured at the same 

scale as the baseline product. 

Additionally, DOE applies price 

learning factors to estimate the 

equipment cost in the year of 

compliance based on trends observed in 

historical data, making comparisons 

with current market prices 

inappropriate. 

AGA asserted that in the February 

2023 SNOPR analysis DOE used a 

simple national average sales tax in the 

LCC analysis that was inconsistent with 

other rulemakings. (AGA, No. 2279 at p. 

40) 

For the February 2023 SNOPR and 

this direct final rule, DOE used Statelevel data downloaded from the Sales 

Tax Clearinghouse to capture the 

geographic variability in sales tax.66 The 

data are aggregated to the Census 

Division level based on projected State 

populations in the compliance year and 

assigned to households in the consumer 

sample. DOE notes that the calculated 

average presented in the February 2023 

SNOPR TSD is a population-weighted 

value, rather than a simple average, and 

is not directly used in the LCC Monte 

Carlo analysis. 

For additional details, see chapter 8 of 

the TSD of this direct final rule. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product that could vary by efficiency. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

used data from the 2021 RS Means 

Mechanical Cost Data 67 on labor 

requirements to estimate installation 

costs for consumer conventional 

cooking products. In general, DOE 

estimated that installation costs would 

be the same for different efficiency 

levels and for both electric and gas 

products. In the case of electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes, the 

induction heating at EL 3 requires a 

change of cookware to ones that are 

ferromagnetic to operate the cooking 

tops in addition to an upgrade to 

existing electrical wiring to 

accommodate for a higher amperage. 

DOE treated this as additional 

installation cost for this particular 

design option. DOE used an average 

number of pots and pans utilized by a 

representative household to estimate 

this portion of the installation cost. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding the methodology for 

calculating installation costs that was 

presented in the February 2023 SNOPR. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

68RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical 

Cost Data (2022). Available at rsmeans.com (last 

accessed on Aug. 3, 2023). 

69Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential 

Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and 

Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL–2001169. 

Available at ees.lbl.gov/publications/residentialelectricity-prices-review. 

70Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data 

Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/nonresidential-electricity-prices. 

71U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information 

Administration. Natural Gas Navigator 2022. 

Available at www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php (last 

accessed July 28, 2023). 

72EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2023. Available at 

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last accessed Aug. 3, 

2023). 

The approach used for this direct final 

rule is largely the same approach DOE 

had used for the February 2023 SNOPR 

analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AGA commented that DOE’s 

LCC model makes simplified cost 

assumptions about cooking tops, 

beginning with unrealistically low 

assumptions about installation for both 

labor and equipment needed. (AGA, No. 

2279 at pp. 35–36) AGA commented 

that equipment and installation costs 

should vary by region, building type, 

installation site, and within a specific 

product class by more than a few dollars 

as determined by DOE. (Id.) AGA 

commented that DOE’s model includes 

the same installation cost for both gas or 

electric appliances and ignores the fact 

that, for example, a gas hookup can 

involve different steps and safety 

procedures that can change the average 

labor cost compared to electric 

products. (Id.) 

DOE acknowledges that cost of 

installation may vary by installation 

location and fuel type. In this direct 

final rule, DOE derived fuel-specific 

installation costs for electric and gas 

products as well as geographicdependent labor factors to account for 

the variability in installation costs in its 

LCC analysis. DOE assumed that average 

values derived from RS Means 2022 68

would be representative of the national 

value for installation of electric 

products. For gas products, DOE 

included an additional labor cost 

including a gas plumber to perform any 

additional set-up specific to gas 

appliances. DOE developed geographic 

labor factors from RS Means 2022. DOE 

notes that that there were no data 

indicating that the installation cost 

varies with efficiency for electric ovens 

and gas cooking products and assigned 

the same installation cost to all 

efficiency levels. 

AGA questioned why additional 

material costs were included in the 

installation cost for induction units but 

not for other efficiency levels. (AGA, 

No. 2279 at p. 37) 

The installation of an induction 

electric smooth element cooking top 

requires additional costs for wiring 

upgrades and purchasing ferromagnetic 

pots that are not needed for noninduction electric smooth element 

cooking tops. A standard at EL 3 would 

require all electric smooth element 

cooking top consumers to purchase an 

induction unit, including the majority of 

consumers that would have purchased a 

non-induction unit in the no-newstandards case. For this reason, DOE 

includes the extra cost for materials in 

order to more accurately reflect the 

increase in installation costs that 

consumers will incur as a result of a 

standard. For all other product classes, 

DOE did not find evidence that material 

costs would differ between efficiency 

levels and therefore assumed that 

material costs would not increase as a 

result of a standard. 

ASAP et al. noted that, due to a lack 

of information about the existing 

amperage of electric circuits in homes, 

DOE assumed that 50 percent of the user 

population would need wiring upgrades 

to meet EL 3; however, ASAP et al. 

stated that wiring upgrades may be 

necessary even in the base case for 

homes with older electric cooking tops 

and smaller breaker capacities (i.e., 30 

amps). (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 4) 

DOE acknowledges it is possible that 

wiring updates may be necessary in 

older homes in the no-new-standards 

case. However, households requiring 

wiring upgrades in both the no-newstandards case (i.e., the base case) and 

a standards case will not incur an 

additional cost attributable to a standard 

and, thus, will not impact the LCC 

savings calculation. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a consumer conventional cooking 

product at different efficiency levels 

using the approach described previously 

in section IV.E of this document. 

4. Energy Prices 

Because marginal electricity price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the product purchased in the no-newstandards case, and marginal electricity 

prices for the incremental change in 

energy use associated with the other 

efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 

using data from EEI Typical Bills and 

Average Rates reports. Based upon 

comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, 

this semi-annual report presents typical 

monthly electric bills and average 

kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as 

charged by investor-owned utilities. For 

the residential sector, DOE calculated 

electricity prices using the methodology 

described in Coughlin and Beraki 

(2018).69 For the commercial sector, 

DOE calculated electricity prices using 

the methodology described in Coughlin 

and Beraki (2019).70

DOE obtained data for calculating 

regional prices of natural gas in 2022 

from the EIA publication, Natural Gas 

Navigator.71 This publication presents 

monthly volumes of natural gas 

deliveries and average prices by State 

for residential, commercial, and 

industrial customers. 

DOE’s methodology allows electricity 

and natural gas prices to vary by sector, 

region, and season. In the analysis, 

variability in electricity prices is chosen 

to be consistent with the way the 

consumer economic and energy use 

characteristics are defined in the LCC 

analysis. For consumer conventional 

cooking products, DOE calculated 

weighted-average values for average and 

marginal electricity and gas prices for 

the nine census divisions. See chapter 8 

of the direct final rule TSD for details. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

average price changes for each of the 

nine census divisions from the 

Reference case in AEO2023, which has 

an end year of 2050.72 To estimate price 

trends after 2050, the 2046–2050 

average was used for all years. 

ONE Gas commented that DOE’s 

forecasting errors were compounded by 

price trends used in the calculations 

that do not reflect the return of natural 

gas prices to historically low levels 

following the COVID–19 pandemic run 

up or the sharp increases in consumer 

electricity prices in States where 

electrification policies are driving allelectric new construction. (ONE Gas, 

No. 2289 at pp. 6–7; ONE Gas, No. 

10109 at p. 4) ONE Gas commented that 

these are real relative consumer energy 

prices that tilt the consumer economics 

in favor of natural gas in the near term 

but that will have persistent impacts on 

future prices over the timeline of the 

rulemaking analysis. (Id.) ONE Gas 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11477 

73Available at www.consumerreports.org/ 

appliances/cooktops/should-you-repair-or-replaceyour-broken-cooktop-a6490859316 (last accessed on 

Aug. 7, 2023). 

74Available at www.fixr.com/costs/oven-repair 

(last accessed on Aug. 7, 2023). 

75The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in net 

present value of lifetime operating cost, 

incorporating the influence of several factors: 

transaction costs; risk premiums and response to 

uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at 

which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The 

implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC 

analysis because it reflects a range of factors that 

influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than 

the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in 

purchases. 

noted that DOE did not include supply 

chain price inflation that is already 

affecting first costs of consumer 

conventional cooking products. (Id.) 

ONE Gas commented that wholesale 

commodity prices appear to be leveling 

off, but consumer prices for durable 

goods have increased via a step function 

due to the war in Ukraine, the COVID– 

19 pandemic, and other disruptions, 

and these costs will not be coming 

down via either economic recovery or 

recession. (Id.) ONE Gas commented 

that it anticipates that DOE’s use of 

RECS 2015 data (instead of RECS 2020) 

will exacerbate these deviations from 

real world prices and consumer LCC. 

(Id.) 

AGA commented that the February 

2023 SNOPR uses an energy price 

forecast based on the AEO, which has 

consistently overestimated future 

natural gas energy costs. (AGA, No. 

2279 at pp. 33–34; AGA et al., No. 

10112 at p. 7) ONE Gas provided similar 

comments, and noted that the forecast 

overstates LCC savings and paybacks for 

natural gas alternatives. (ONE Gas, No. 

2289 at pp. 5–6) AGA commented that 

the statistically biased outcome toward 

higher prices in the AEO reveals a need 

for DOE’s analysis to use a distribution 

of prices in its model simulations and 

not a forecasted mean. (AGA, No. 2279 

at pp. 33–34; AGA et al., No. 10112 at 

p. 7) ONE Gas commented that DOE 

uses single time series consumer energy 

price forecasts for electricity and 

gaseous fuels in contrast to the 

probability-weighted analysis input 

variables DOE has used in Monte Carlo 

simulations in the consumer LCC 

savings analysis. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at 

pp. 5–6) 

DOE maintains that the patterns of 

difference between AEO projections and 

actual energy prices do not reflect a 

systematic bias in the model used to 

prepare the AEO or the assumptions. 

The AEO2023 projection for residential 

natural gas prices shows constant-dollar 

prices declining from the 2022–2023 

spike and then increasing at a slow rate 

starting around 2030. Rather than use a 

distribution of prices, DOE conducted a 

sensitivity analysis using AEO2023 

cases that exhibit higher and lower 

energy prices than the Reference 

projection. The analysis and results are 

described in appendix 8E of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, the CO2 Coalition requested 

that DOE explain the data supporting its 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for consumer cooking tops, including 

the data showing natural gas is cheaper 

than electricity. The CO2 Coalition 

commented that DOE cannot ignore a 

category of costs (e.g., upstream 

renewable energy generation costs) and 

stated that the CO2 Coalition was unable 

to understand how electricity, which 

costs 3.5 times more than natural gas, is 

more energy efficient. The CO2 Coalition 

requested additional information 

regarding how DOE computed the 

anticipated savings attributed to the 

proposed standards. (The CO2 Coalition, 

No. 2275 at pp. 6–7) 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, ONE Gas and AGA et al. 

commented that the DOE’s recently 

published representative average unit 

costs of energy indicates that natural gas 

is more affordable that other fuels 

including electricity on a unit cost basis. 

(ONE Gas, No. 10109 at pp. 1–2; AGA 

et al., No. 101112 at p. 7) 

DOE provides the methodology and 

data sources for calculating energy cost 

savings by geographic location in 

Chapter 8 of the TSD and energy cost 

accounting in Chapter 15 of the TSD. 

The representative average unit 

referenced by ONE Gas and AGA et al. 

are used by manufacturers to comply 

with the U.S. Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’) labeling 

requirements and do not capture the 

diversity in energy costs utilized in the 

LCC analysis. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing product 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. Typically, 

small incremental increases in product 

efficiency entail no, or only minor, 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

compared to baseline efficiency 

products. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

updated repair costs for all product 

classes based on available online data. 

For cooking tops, DOE used data from 

a 2022 Consumer Reports survey.73 DOE 

assumed a repair cost of $153 for a gas 

cooking top, $192 for a non-induction 

electric smooth element cooking top, 

and $536 for an induction electric 

smooth element cooking top. For ovens, 

DOE used data from an online appliance 

repair website that presented average 

values of $150 for electric ovens and 

$350 for gas ovens.74 With the exception 

of induction electric smooth element 

cooking tops, DOE notes repair costs do 

not vary by efficiency level, and remain 

the same in the no-new-standards and 

standards cases leading to no additional 

repair cost as a result of a standard. 

6. Product Lifetime 

For consumer conventional cooking 

products, DOE used a variety of sources 

to establish low, average, and high 

estimates for product lifetime. 

Additionally, DOE used AHAM’s input 

on the average useful life by product 

category, such as electric range, gas 

range, wall oven, and electric cooking 

top. Utilizing this detail and the market 

shares of these product categories, DOE 

estimated the average lifetime estimates 

to be 16.8 years for all electric cooking 

products and 14.5 years for all gas 

cooking products. DOE characterized 

the product lifetimes with Weibull 

probability distributions. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 

value of future expenditures and 

savings. DOE estimated a distribution of 

discount rates for consumer 

conventional cooking products based on 

the opportunity cost of consumer funds. 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates.75 The LCC 

analysis estimates net present value 

over the lifetime of the product, so the 

appropriate discount rate will reflect the 

general opportunity cost of household 

funds, taking this time scale into 

account. Given the long time horizon 

modeled in the LCC, the application of 

a marginal interest rate associated with 

an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 

Regardless of the method of purchase, 

consumers are expected to continue to 

rebalance their debt and asset holdings 

over the LCC analysis period, based on 

the restrictions consumers face in their 

debt payment requirements and the 

relative size of the interest rates 

available on debts and assets. DOE 

estimates the aggregate impact of this 

rebalancing using the historical 

distribution of debts and assets. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

76U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 

Available at www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/ 

scf/scfindex.htm (last accessed Aug. 3, 2023). 

77As discussed in chapter 5 of the direct final 

rule TSD, DOE defined products that do not have 

at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron 

grates as ‘‘entry-level.’’ 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all 

relevant household debt or asset classes 

in order to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings. It 

estimated the average percentage shares 

of the various types of debt and equity 

by household income group using data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

triennial Survey of Consumer 

Finances 76 (‘‘SCF’’) starting in 1995 and 

ending in 2019. Using the SCF and other 

sources, DOE developed a distribution 

of rates for each type of debt and asset 

by income group to represent the rates 

that may apply in the year in which new 

and amended standards would take 

effect. DOE assigned each sample 

household a specific discount rate 

drawn from one of the distributions. 

The average rate across all types of 

household debt and equity and income 

groups, weighted by the shares of each 

type, is 4.1 percent. See chapter 8 of the 

direct final rule TSD for further details 

on the development of consumer 

discount rates. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding the discount rates used in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. The approach 

used for this direct final rule is largely 

the same approach DOE had used for 

the February 2023 SNOPR analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AHAM commented that DOE 

uses an inappropriate discount rate in 

its analysis of the effects of standards on 

low-income households, claiming that 

this analysis does not take into account 

issues of capital availability or the nonfinancial costs from a purchase. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 49–50) AHAM 

also presented data from its survey work 

with Bellomy Research showing that the 

lowest 30-percent income groups have 

no discretionary income to save, making 

it impossible for these groups to 

rebalance their balance sheets after 

making a purchase. (Id.) 

With respect to the issue of DOE’s 

methodology for estimating consumer 

discount rates, DOE maintains that the 

LCC is not predicting a purchase 

decision, as AHAM seems to interpret 

given a focus on the availability of cash 

for appliance purchases. Rather, the 

LCC estimates the net present value of 

the financial impact of a given standard 

level over the lifetime of the product 

(i.e., 14.5 years for gas cooking products 

and 16.8 years for electric cooking 

products) assuming the standardcompliant product has already been 

installed, and allows for comparison of 

this value across different hypothetical 

minimum efficiency levels. The LCC is 

applied to future-year energy costs and 

non-energy operations and maintenance 

costs in order to calculate the net 

present value of the appliance to a 

household at the time of installation. 

The consumer discount rate reflects the 

opportunity cost of receiving energy 

cost savings in the future, rather than at 

the time of purchase and installation. 

The opportunity cost of receiving 

operating cost savings in future years, 

rather than in the first year of the 

modeled period, is dependent on the 

rate of return that could be earned if 

invested into an interest-bearing asset or 

the interest cost accrual avoided by 

paying down debt. Consumers in all 

income groups generally hold a variety 

of assets (e.g., certificates of deposit, 

stocks, bonds) and debts (e.g., mortgage, 

credit cards, vehicle loan), which vary 

in amount over time as consumers 

allocate their earnings, make new 

investments, etc. Thus, the consumer 

discount rate is estimated as a weighted 

average of the rates and proportions of 

the various types of assets and debts 

held by households in each income 

group, as reported by the Survey of 

Consumer Finances. In the low-income 

subgroup analysis, DOE separately 

evaluated the impact of increased 

efficiency standards on low-income 

households using discount rates 

estimated specifically for the lowincome group. 

Whirlpool commented that DOE’s 

analysis fails to account for the fact that 

many consumers, especially low-income 

consumers, finance their appliance 

purchases through loans or other 

methods, and any increase in the 

upfront cost of an appliance will have 

a direct impact on the cost of financing 

the appliance. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at 

p. 5) Whirlpool stated that financing 

comes at a cost that exceeds the face 

value of a product, specifically in cases 

in which consumers owe interest, and 

recommended that DOE account for 

these costs in the proposal. (Id.) 

In the case of gas cooking tops 

(standalone and as a component of a 

combined cooking product), the price 

differential between EL 1 (the adopted 

standard level) and baseline is $4.04 in 

2028, the first year of compliance at the 

Recommended TSL. If a consumer 

purchases the more efficient unit on a 

credit card with a 25-percent APR, it 

would amount to an additional 

financing cost of only about $0.09 per 

month in the first year of leaving the 

balance on the card. While the 

compound interest could start to 

accumulate if the balance was left 

unpaid for an extended period of time 

(e.g., for the life of the appliance or 

longer), DOE contends that it would be 

an unusual case as the Survey of 

Consumer Finances shows that 

consumers across all income groups 

generally rebalance their assets and 

debts before a significant amount of 

interest is incurred. 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies under the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards) in the compliance year. This 

approach reflects the fact that some 

consumers may purchase products with 

efficiencies greater than the baseline 

levels in the absence of new or amended 

standards. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

estimated the efficiency distribution for 

each product class of cooking tops from 

the tested efficiencies of cooking tops 

used to develop the SNOPR engineering 

analysis. For ovens, DOE relied on 

model counts of the current market 

distribution. Given the lack of data on 

historic efficiency trends, DOE assumed 

that the estimated current distributions 

would apply in the compliance year in 

the no-new-standards case. 

In the February 2023 NODA, DOE 

clarified that the efficiency distribution 

for gas cooking tops presented in the 

February 2023 SNOPR did not include 

higher-efficiency ‘‘entry-level’’ 

products 77 that were not included in 

the development of efficiency levels. 

Based on its testing results and model 

counts of the burner/grate 

configurations of gas cooking top 

models currently available on the 

websites of major U.S. retailers, DOE 

estimated in the February 2023 NODA 

that the products that were screened out 

of the engineering analysis represent 

over 40 percent of the market and 

exceed the max tech efficiency levels. 

DOE further estimated that nearly half 

of the total gas cooking top market 

currently meets or exceeds the max tech 

level. 88 FR 12605. 

Multiple stakeholders questioned 

DOE’s methodology for estimating the 

percentage of gas cooking tops that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11479 

78As discussed in chapter 5 of the direct final 

rule TSD, DOE defined products that feature at least 

one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates as 

‘‘non-entry-level’’. 

would meet the standard proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR and August 

2023 NODA. AHAM stated that DOE did 

not provide data in the February 2023 

SNOPR or TSD to support the assertion 

that nearly half of the gas cooking tops 

meet the proposed standard. (AHAM, 

No. 127 at p. 2) NPGA commented that 

the method by which DOE arrived at the 

market share of gas cooking tops 

screened out of the February 2023 

SNOPR is suspect. (NPGA, No. 2270 at 

p. 10) The Institute for Energy Research 

(‘‘IER’’) stated that DOE provides no 

support to the assertion made in the 

February 2023 NODA that nearly half of 

the total gas cooking tops market 

currently achieve EL 2. (IER, No. 2274 

at pp. 5–6) Western Alliance Energy 

commented that DOE issued conflicting 

information between the February 2023 

SNOPR and the August 2023 NODA 

regarding the market share of gas 

cooking tops that would be able to meet 

the proposed standard. (Western 

Alliance Energy, No. 2272 at p. 3) 

AHAM commented that DOE has 

presented contradictory information and 

data regarding the percentage of 

compliant gas cooking tops, using its 

test sample in the February 2023 

SNOPR and including model counts 

based on product features in the August 

2023 NODA. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 

13–15) Spire stated its concern 

regarding DOE’s assumption that all gas 

cooking top products lacking both HIR 

burners and cast-iron grates meet the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR because DOE tested only two 

such products. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 

5–7) 

NAHB commented that gas ranges are 

crucial for affordable housing as they 

represent the more affordable end of the 

product spectrum and are often used in 

starter homes and dwellings with 

limited kitchen sizes. (NAHB, No. 2288 

at p. 2) NAHB commented that DOE’s 

methodology investigated product 

samples that are not representative of 

the overall product market, by 

oversampling gas cooking tops versus 

gas ranges, with outcomes that penalize 

cooking tops that are part of a range. 

(Id.) NAHB commented that many 

consumer-preferred ranges will likely be 

unable to comply with the standards 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

despite being a popular consumer 

choice. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE must 

demonstrate that its proposed rule is 

based on adequate data and is not 

arbitrary and capricious and added that 

DOE should not proceed to a final rule 

without ensuring that its test sample is 

representative of the market. (AHAM, 

No. 2285 at pp. 6–8) AHAM commented 

that although it conducted testing in 

support of its comments, the AHAM test 

sample does not solve the 

representativeness issue. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that its data show 

that in its test sample, DOE significantly 

under-sampled gas ranges, which 

represent a majority of gas cooking top 

shipments in 2022 and over-sampled 

gas standalone cooking tops, then relied 

on these test samples as representative 

of the market, representing a significant 

error. (Id. at p. 6) AHAM presented 

shipment data stating that 86.7 percent 

of gas cooking tops were shipped as part 

of gas ranges in 2022, whereas DOE’s 

test sample only includes 38.1 percent 

of gas ranges. (Id.) AHAM presented a 

table showing that gas and electric 

ranges represented 91 percent of the 

total cooking products shipped in 2022. 

(Id. at p. 27) 

AHAM commented that its data show 

that in its test sample, DOE significantly 

over-sampled induction cooking tops 

among electric products. (Id. at p. 6) 

AHAM presented 2022 shipment data 

stating that 4.6 percent of electric 

cooking tops were induction, whereas 

they represent 40.9 percent of DOE’s test 

sample. (Id.) AHAM also presented 2022 

shipment data stating that 25.6 percent 

of electric cooking tops use open (coil) 

elements, whereas they only represent 

9.1 percent of DOE’s test sample. (Id.) 

ASAP et al. supported DOE’s estimate 

of the percentage of gas cooking tops on 

the market that meet the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 

(ASAP et al., No. 2273 at p. 3) 

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

updated its analysis in response to 

stakeholder data and information 

received in response to the February 

2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 50810, 50811. For 

electric cooking tops, DOE used AHAM 

shipment data to calculate an updated 

efficiency distribution incorporating 

weightings for electric smooth element 

cooking tops are that are sold as 

components of conventional ranges 

(93.4 percent) and as a standalone unit 

(6.6 percent), as well as weightings for 

radiant technology (93.8 percent) and 

induction technology (6.2 percent). Id. 

at 88 FR 50814. For gas cooking tops, 

DOE presented updated efficiency levels 

based on substantive feedback provided 

by stakeholders (see section IV.C.1.a of 

this document) and presented updated 

efficiency distributions incorporating 

weightings for gas cooking tops are that 

are sold as components of conventional 

ranges (86.7 percent) and as a 

standalone unit (13.3 percent), as well 

as weightings for entry-level cooking 

tops (40 percent) and non-entry-level 78

cooking tops (60 percent). Id. at 88 FR 

50815. DOE notes that the expanded 

data set shows that not all entry-level 

gas cooking tops achieve the updated EL 

2 efficiency, and that the updated 

efficiency distributions reflect this fact. 

Id. In the August 2023 NODA, DOE 

maintained the same efficiency 

distributions for electric and gas ovens 

as was used in the February 2023 

SNOPR. Id. 

ONE Gas asserted that DOE 

characterizing gas cooking tops as entrylevel or non-entry-level is antithetical to 

DOE’s rulemaking responsibilities for 

setting energy efficiency standards for 

covered products generally and ad hoc 

and undefined with respect to DOE’s 

responsibility for defining consumer 

benefits. (ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 3) 

ONE Gas commented that it understood 

the characterization of entry-level 

products as an attempt to capture lowincome consumer products. (Id.) ONE 

Gas asserted that this interpretation is 

unwarranted without additional 

description of how DOE uses such 

characterizations, an analysis of the 

economic burden that these types of 

minimum efficiency standards could 

impose, and an analysis on the income 

effect of standards. (Id.) ONE Gas 

commented that entry-level gas 

products represent the most viable and 

cost-effective energy solution and 

asserted that by characterizing these 

products as such, DOE presumes that 

consumers will upgrade to more 

expensive products. 

In response to ONE Gas’s assertion 

that DOE characterizing gas cooking 

tops as entry-level or non-entry-level is 

ad hoc and antithetical to DOE’s 

rulemaking responsibilities, DOE notes 

that the categorization was used for the 

purposes of defining the no-newstandards case efficiency distributions. 

DOE notes that entry-level gas cooking 

tops, while being typically the cheapest 

products, are also often the most 

efficient and that all of the entry-level 

gas cooking tops in DOE’s expanded test 

sample meet the adopted standard level. 

ASAP et al. commented in support of 

the updated no-new-standards case 

market share estimates for electric 

smooth element cooking tops and gas 

cooking tops based on shipment 

estimates recently provided by 

manufacturers. (ASAP et al., No. 10113 

at p. 1) 

For this direct final rule, DOE used 

the methodology from the August 2023 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11480 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

NODA to estimate efficiency 

distributions for electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes, gas 

cooking top product classes, electric 

oven product classes, and gas oven 

product classes. As in the February 2023 

SNOPR, DOE assumed no efficiency 

trend. 

The estimated market shares for the 

no-new-standards case for consumer 

conventional cooking products are 

shown in Table IV.26 through Table 

IV.29. See chapter 8 of the direct final 

rule TSD for further information on the 

derivation of the efficiency 

distributions. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.033</GPH> ER14FE24.034</GPH> ER14FE24.035</GPH> ER14FE24.036</GPH>

Table IV.26 Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Market Shares for the No-NewStandards Case 

Standalone Cooking Top Cooking Top Component of a Combined Cooking 

Product 

Efficiency IAEC Market Share Efficiency IAEC Market Share 

Level (kWh/year) (%) Level (kWh/year) (%) 

Baseline 250 23% Baseline 250 23% 

1 207 62% 1 207 62% 

2 189 15% 2 189 15% 

3 179 0.02% 3 179 0.02% 

Table IV.27 Gas Cooking Top Market Shares for the No-New-Standards Case 

Standalone Cooking Top Cooking Top Component of a Combined Cooking 

Product 

Efficiency IAEC Market Share Efficiency IAEC Market Share 

Level (kBtu/year) (%) Level (kBtu/year) (%) 

Baseline 1,900 3% Baseline 1,900 3% 

1 1,770 56% 1 1,770 56% 

2 1,343 41% 2 1,343 41% 

Table IV.28 Electric Oven Market Shares for the No-New-Standards Case 

Efficiency Electric Standard Electric Standard Electric Self-Clean Electric Self-Clean 

Ovens, Ovens, Ovens, Ovens, Level Freestandine: Built-In/Slide-In Freestandine: Built-In/Slide-In 

0 5% 5% 5% 5% 

1 57% 65% 18% 7% 

2 38% 30% 77% 86% 

3 0% 0% 0% 2% 

Table IV.29 Gas Oven Market Shares for the No-New-Standards Case 

Gas Standard Gas Standard Gas Self-Clean Gas Self-Clean 

EL Ovens, Ovens, Ovens, Ovens, 

Freestanding Built-In/Slide-In Freestanding Built-In/Slide-In 

0 4% 4% 4% 4% 

1 34% 58% 3% 19% 

2 62% 38% 93% 77% 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11481 

79Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P. 

(2014). ‘‘Choice Architecture’’ in The Behavioral 

Foundations of Public Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed). 

80Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ‘‘Save 

More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in 

Increase Employee Savings,’’ Journal of Political 

Economy 112(1), S164–S187. See also Klemick, H., 

et al. (2015) ‘‘Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy 

Efficiency Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups 

and Interviews,’’ Transportation Research Part A: 

Policy & Practice, 77, 154–166 (providing evidence 

that loss aversion and other market failures can 

affect otherwise profit-maximizing firms). 

81Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: 

Improving Decisions on Health, Wealth, and 

Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

82 Davis, L.W., and G.E. Metcalf (2016): ‘‘Does 

better information lead to better choices? Evidence 

from energy-efficiency labels,’’ Journal of the 

Association of Environmental and Resource 

Economists, 3(3), 589–625 (Available at: 

www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/ 

686252) (Last accessed August 1, 2023). 

The LCC Monte Carlo simulations 

draw from the efficiency distributions 

and randomly assign an efficiency to the 

consumer conventional cooking 

products purchased by each sample 

household in the no-new-standards 

case. The resulting percent shares 

within the sample match the market 

shares in the efficiency distributions. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

performed a random assignment of 

efficiency levels to consumers in its 

Monte Carlo sample. While DOE 

acknowledges that economic factors 

may play a role when consumers decide 

on what type of conventional cooking 

product to install, assignment of 

conventional cooking product efficiency 

for a given installation, based solely on 

economic measures such as life-cycle 

cost or simple payback period, most 

likely would not fully and accurately 

reflect actual real-world installations. 

There are a number of market failures 

discussed in the economics literature 

that illustrate how purchasing decisions 

with respect to energy efficiency are 

unlikely to be perfectly correlated with 

energy use, as described below. DOE 

maintains that the method of 

assignment, which is in part random, is 

a reasonable approach, because it 

simulates behavior in the conventional 

cooking product market, where market 

failures result in purchasing decisions 

not being perfectly aligned with 

economic interests, more realistically 

than relying only on apparent costeffectiveness criteria derived from the 

limited information in RECS. DOE 

further emphasizes that its approach 

does not assume that all purchasers of 

consumer conventional cooking product 

make economically irrational decisions 

(i.e., the lack of a correlation is not the 

same as a negative correlation). As part 

of the random assignment, some homes 

or buildings with more frequent cooking 

events will be assigned higher efficiency 

conventional cooking products, and 

some homes or buildings with 

particularly lower cooking events will 

be assigned baseline units. By using this 

approach, DOE acknowledges the 

uncertainty inherent in the data and 

minimizes any bias in the analysis by 

using random assignment, as opposed to 

assuming certain market conditions that 

are unsupported given the available 

evidence. 

The following discussion provides 

more detail about the various market 

failures that affect consumer 

conventional cooking product 

purchases. First, consumers are 

motivated by more than simple financial 

trade-offs. There are several behavioral 

factors that can influence the 

purchasing decisions of complicated 

multi-attribute products, such as 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. For example, consumers (or 

decision makers in an organization) are 

highly influenced by choice 

architecture, defined as the framing of 

the decision, the surrounding 

circumstances of the purchase, the 

alternatives available, and how they are 

presented for any given choice 

scenario.79 The same consumer or 

decision maker may make different 

choices depending on the characteristics 

of the decision context (e.g., the timing 

of the purchase, competing demands for 

funds), which have nothing to do with 

the characteristics of the alternatives 

themselves or their prices. Consumers 

or decision makers also face a variety of 

other behavioral phenomena including 

loss aversion, sensitivity to information 

salience, and other forms of bounded 

rationality.80 Thaler, who won the 

Nobel Prize in Economics in 2017 for 

his contributions to behavioral 

economics, and Sunstein point out that 

these behavioral factors are strongest 

when the decisions are complex and 

infrequent, when feedback on the 

decision is muted and slow, and when 

there is a high degree of information 

asymmetry.81 These characteristics 

describe almost all purchasing 

situations of appliances and equipment, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. The installation of a 

new or replacement consumer 

conventional cooking products is done 

very infrequently, as evidenced by the 

mean lifetime of 14.5 years for gas 

cooking products and 16.8 years for 

electric cooking products. Further, if the 

purchaser of the consumer conventional 

cooking product is not the entity paying 

the energy costs (e.g., a building owner 

and tenant), there may be little to no 

feedback on the purchase. Additionally, 

there are systematic market failures that 

are likely to contribute further 

complexity to how products are chosen 

by consumers, as explained in the 

following paragraphs. The first of these 

market failures—the split-incentive or 

principal-agent problem—is likely to 

significantly affect consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

principal-agent problem is a market 

failure that results when the consumer 

that purchases the equipment does not 

internalize all of the costs associated 

with operating the equipment. Instead, 

the user of the product, who has no 

control over the purchase decision, pays 

the operating costs. There is a high 

likelihood of split-incentive problems in 

the case of rental properties where the 

landlord makes the choice of what 

consumer conventional cooking product 

to install, whereas the renter is 

responsible for paying energy bills. 

In addition to the split-incentive 

problem, there are other market failures 

that are likely to affect the choice of 

consumer conventional cooking product 

efficiency made by consumers. For 

example, unplanned replacements due 

to unexpected failure of equipment such 

as a consumer conventional cooking 

products are strongly biased toward 

like-for-like replacement (i.e., replacing 

the non-functioning equipment with a 

similar or identical product). Time is a 

constraining factor during unplanned 

replacements, and consumers may not 

consider the full range of available 

options on the market, despite their 

availability. The consideration of 

alternative product options is far more 

likely for planned replacements and 

installations in new construction. 

Additionally, Davis and Metcalf 82

conducted an experiment demonstrating 

that, even when consumers are 

presented with energy consumption 

information, the nature of the 

information available to consumers (e.g., 

from EnergyGuide labels) results in an 

inefficient allocation of energy 

efficiency across households with 

different usage levels. Their findings 

indicate that households are likely to 

make decisions regarding the efficiency 

of the air conditioning equipment of 

their homes that do not result in the 

highest net present value for their 

specific usage pattern (i.e., their 

decision is based on imperfect 

information and, therefore, is not 

necessarily optimal). Also, most 

consumers did not properly understand 

the labels (specifically whether energy 

consumption and cost estimates were 

national averages or specific to their 

State). As such, consumers did not make 

the most informed decisions. Consumer 

conventional cooking products do not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11482 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

83Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W. 

Bruine de Bruin (2010): ‘‘Public perceptions of 

energy consumption and savings.’’ Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences 107(37), 16054– 

16059 (Available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/ 

16054) (Last accessed August 1, 2023). 

84Houde, S. (2018): ‘‘How Consumers Respond to 

Environmental Certification and the Value of 

Energy Information,’’ The RAND Journal of 

Economics, 49 (2), 453–477 (Available at: 

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756- 

2171.12231) (Last accessed August 1, 2023). 

require EnergyGuide labels, therefore 

energy consumption information is 

more difficult to determine for a 

consumer, resulting in an even more 

inefficient allocation of energy 

efficiency across households with 

different usage levels. 

In part because of the way 

information is presented, and in part 

because of the way consumers process 

information, there is also a market 

failure consisting of a systematic bias in 

the perception of equipment energy 

usage, which can affect consumer 

choices. Attari et al.83 show that 

consumers tend to underestimate the 

energy use of large energy-intensive 

appliances (such as air conditioners, 

dishwashers, and clothes dryers), but 

overestimate the energy use of small 

appliances (such as light bulbs). 

Therefore, it is possible that consumers 

systematically underestimate the energy 

use associated with consumer 

conventional cooking products, 

resulting in less cost-effective 

purchases. 

These market failures affect a sizeable 

share of the consumer population. A 

study by Houde 84 indicates that there is 

a significant subset of consumers that 

appear to purchase appliances without 

taking into account their energy 

efficiency and operating costs at all. 

The existence of market failures in the 

residential sector is well supported by 

the economics literature and by a 

number of case studies. If DOE 

developed an efficiency distribution 

that assigned consumer conventional 

cooking product efficiency in the nonew-standards case solely according to 

energy use or economic considerations 

such as life-cycle cost or payback 

period, the resulting distribution of 

efficiencies within the consumer sample 

would not reflect any of the market 

failures or behavioral factors above. 

Thus, DOE concludes such a 

distribution would not be representative 

of the consumer conventional cooking 

product market. Further, even if a 

specific household is not subject to the 

market failures above, the purchasing 

decision of conventional cooking 

product efficiency can be highly 

complex and influenced by a number of 

factors (e.g., aesthetics) not captured by 

the building characteristics available in 

the RECS sample. These factors can lead 

to households or building owners 

choosing a conventional cooking 

product efficiency that deviates from the 

efficiency predicted using only energy 

use or economic considerations such as 

life-cycle cost or payback period (as 

calculated using the information from 

RECS 2020). 

There is a complex set of behavioral 

factors, with sometimes opposing 

effects, affecting the consumer 

conventional cooking product market. It 

is impractical to model every consumer 

decision incorporating all of these 

effects at this extreme level of 

granularity given the limited available 

data. Given these myriad factors, DOE 

estimates the resulting distribution of 

such a model, if it were possible, would 

be very scattered with high variability. 

It is for this reason DOE utilizes a 

random distribution (after accounting 

for efficiency market share constraints) 

to approximate these effects. The 

methodology is not an assertion of 

economic irrationality, but instead, it is 

a methodological approximation of 

complex consumer behavior. The 

analysis is neither biased toward high or 

low energy savings. The methodology 

does not preferentially assign lowerefficiency conventional cooking 

products to households in the no-newstandards case where savings from the 

rule would be greatest, nor does it 

preferentially assign lower-efficiency 

conventional cooking products to 

households in the no-new-standards 

case where savings from the rule would 

be smallest. Some consumers were 

assigned the conventional cooking 

products that they would have chosen if 

they had engaged in perfect economic 

considerations when purchasing the 

products. Others were assigned lessefficient conventional cooking products 

even where a more-efficient product 

would eventually result in life-cycle 

savings, simulating scenarios where, for 

example, various market failures 

prevent consumers from realizing those 

savings. Still others were assigned 

conventional cooking products that 

were more efficient than one would 

expect simply from life-cycle costs 

analysis, reflecting, say, ‘‘green’’ 

behavior, whereby consumers ascribe 

independent value to minimizing harm 

to the environment. 

ASAP et al. commented that they 

believe DOE’s assignment of efficiency 

levels in the no-new-standards case 

reasonably reflects actual consumer 

behavior. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at pp. 

1–2) ASAP et al. supported DOE’s 

determination that its method of 

assigning cooking product efficiencies is 

more representative of actual consumer 

behavior than assigning efficiencies 

based solely on cost-effectiveness. (Id.) 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

performed a random assignment of 

efficiencies in the LCC analysis. 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time (expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more-efficient products, 

compared to baseline products, through 

energy cost savings. Payback periods 

that exceed the life of the product mean 

that the increased total installed cost is 

not recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple 

PBP’’ because it does not consider 

changes over time in operating cost 

savings. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis when 

deriving first-year operating costs. 

NPGA commented that DOE does not 

disclose how it calculated the estimated 

installation cost of a gas cooking top at 

the proposed standard level in the 

February 2023 SNOPR and asserted that 

the payback period for a compliant unit 

would be approximately 261 years. 

(NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 9) 

DOE’s methodology for calculating 

installed cost and payback period is 

documented in chapter 8 of the TSD and 

in the LCC analytical spreadsheet. 

As noted previously, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered 

efficiency level, DOE determined the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the energy savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, and multiplying those 

savings by the average energy price 

projection for the year in which 

compliance with the new and amended 

standards would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11483 

85 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

86Although this individual commenter is 

associated with the American Enterprise Institute, 

the comment states that the views expressed in it 

should not be construed as representing any official 

position of the American Enterprise Institute. 

(Zycher, No. 2266 at p. 1) 

87Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. 

Appliance Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy 

& Replacement Picture 2012. 

88U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical Review: 

2000 to YTD 2011. 

manufacturer cash flows.85 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

product stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

is a key input to calculations of both the 

NES and NPV, because operating costs 

for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. The shipments 

projections are based on historical data 

and an analysis of key market drivers for 

each product. For consumer 

conventional cooking products, DOE 

accounted for three market segments: (1) 

new construction, (2) existing homes 

(i.e., replacing failed products), and (3) 

retired but not replaced products. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding its shipments analysis for the 

February 2023 SNOPR. The approach 

used for this direct final rule is largely 

the same approach DOE had used for 

the February 2023 SNOPR analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, Benjamin Zycher 86 commented 

that despite DOE’s assertion, estimated 

aggregate data on sales are available 

from market reports. (Zycher, No. 2266 

at p. 3) 

DOE maintains that AHAM shipments 

data collected from consumer cooking 

product manufacturers present a more 

accurate estimate for annual national 

sales compared to estimates provided by 

third-party market reports. 

To determine new construction 

shipments, DOE used a forecast of new 

housing coupled with product market 

saturation data for new housing. For 

new housing completions and mobile 

home placements, DOE adopted the 

projections from EIA’s AEO2023 

through 2050. For subsequent years, 

DOE set the annual new housing 

completions fixed to the 2050 value. 

In response to February 2023 SNOPR, 

the National Multifamily Housing 

Council (‘‘NMHC’’) and National 

Apartment Association (‘‘NAA’’) 

recommended that DOE consider the 

impacts of this rulemaking on housing 

production and affordability to ensure 

that new cooking product efficiency 

requirements do not undermine efforts 

to address acute housing challenges in 

the United States. (NMHC and NAA, 

No. 2265 at pp. 1–3) 

DOE notes that the estimated installed 

cost increase associated with the 

Recommended TSL under the Joint 

Agreement is less than one percent 

relative to the cost of a baseline unit for 

all product classes and is unlikely to 

impact housing production or 

affordability. 

DOE estimated replacements using 

product retirement functions developed 

from product lifetimes. DOE used 

retirement functions based on Weibull 

distributions. To reconcile the historical 

shipments with modeled shipments, 

DOE assumed that every retired unit is 

not necessarily replaced. DOE attributed 

the reason for this non-replacement to 

building demolition occurring over the 

shipments analysis period. The notreplaced rate is distributed across 

electric and gas cooking products. 

DOE allocated shipments to each 

product class based on the current 

market share of the class. DOE 

developed the market shares based on 

data collected from the Appliance 

Magazine Market Research report 87 and 

U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical 

Review.88

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, ONE Gas commented that 

DOE’s shipments analysis projects that 

electric cooking tops will account for 75 

percent of the market share starting in 

2027 to 2055, which fails to account for 

the introduction of technologically 

advanced and more energy-efficient gas 

appliances into the market, and 

subsequent increased market demand 

for such products. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 

at p. 11) 

DOE projects the market share of 

electric and gas cooking tops based on 

historical data. In both the February 

2023 SNOPR and this direct final rule, 

DOE estimates that electric cooking tops 

(including electric open (coil) element 

cooking tops) account for approximately 

60 percent of the cooking top market, 

similar to the 2022 estimates from 

AHAM shipments data. DOE is unaware 

of data identifying future product 

launches of technologically advanced, 

energy-efficient gas appliances and their 

impact on the cooking top market and 

did not include such a trend in the 

shipments analysis. 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, AHAM commented that DOE 

projections overestimate savings 

because DOE has not incorporated a 

slower rate of adoption of new or 

replacement cooking tops as a result of 

a standard that reduces product features 

or performance. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 

25) AHAM asserted that a standard that 

diminishes product performance will 

extend the operating lifetime of existing, 

non-compliant cooking tops, slowing 

the rate of adoption of new or 

replacement cooking tops that would 

result from reducing features or product 

performance. (Id.) 

As discussed, DOE has concluded that 

the standards adopted in this direct 

final rule will not lessen the utility or 

performance of consumer conventional 

cooking products. Therefore, DOE finds 

no basis to conclude that shipments of 

new cooking tops would be affected by 

product performance in the standards 

case. For this direct final rule, DOE used 

the approach used in the August 2023 

NODA for estimating shipments in 

standards cases. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

did not include the impact of the 

Inflation Reduction Act (‘‘IRA’’) or local 

electrification policies. Whirlpool 

commented that IRA rebates would 

incentivize consumers to purchase 

electric cooking products and should be 

included in the shipments model. 

(Whirlpool, No. 400 at p. 45) Whirlpool 

commented that it was not sure what 

level of impact that might have but that 

it could be included in the analysis. (Id.) 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

estimated the impact that the IRA and 

local electrification policies would have 

on product shipments in the no-newstandards and standards cases. The IRA 

apportions $4.3 billion to homeowners 

to transition from gas products to 

electric products with a maximum 

rebate of $14,000 per household and up 

to $840 specifically for cooking 

products. DOE estimated that the 

portion of IRA funding used for cooking 

products was proportional to the ratio of 

the maximum cooking product rebate 

with the total maximum household 

rebate. The rebate amount for which 

households are eligible is dependent on 

household income, ranging from 50 to 

100 percent of the cooking product cost, 

with a maximum of $840. DOE 

conservatively assumed not all 

households would be eligible for the full 

rebate and that potential rebates would 

range from half the full rebate amount 

($420) to the full rebate amount ($840). 

DOE assumed a typical cooking product 

rebate of $630, the midpoint between 

these two values. From this analysis, 

DOE estimates that approximately 

410,000 households over the period of 

2023–2031 will voluntarily switch from 

gas cooking products to electric cooking 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11484 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

89 ‘‘The AGs of LA et al.’’ refers to a joint 

comment from the attorneys general of the States of 

Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 

Texas, Utah, and Virginia. 

90 ‘‘Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et al.’’ 

refers to a joint comment from the following 

members of the U.S. House of Representatives: 

Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (WA), Jeff Duncan (SC), 

Debbie Lesko (AZ), Bruce Westerman (AR), Jason 

Smith (MO), Rick Allen (GA), Earl L. ‘‘Buddy’’ 

Carter (GA), John Joyce (PA), Dan Newhouse (WA), 

Troy Balderson (OH), Greg Pence (IN), Gregory F. 

Murphy (NC), Robert E. Latta (OH), Jefferson Van 

Drew (NJ), Randy Weber (TX), Larry Bucshon (IN), 

Elise M. Stefanik (NY), John Curtis (UT), Russ 

Fulcher (ID), Claudia Tenney (NY), Lauren Boebert 

(CO), Diana Harshbarger (TN), Andy Biggs (AZ), 

Troy Nehls (TX), Ronny L. Jackson (TX), Bill 

Johnson (OH), Austin Scott (GA), Alex X. Mooney 

(WV), Mike Ezell (MS), Adrian Smith (NE), Randy 

Feenstra (IA), Andy Ogles (TN), Mike Kelly (PA), 

Dan Crenshaw (TX), Robert J. Wittman (VA), Glenn 

Grothman (WI), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA), 

Harriet M. Hageman (NY), Kat Cammack (FL), Ann 

Wagner (MO), William R. Timmons (SC), Tracey 

Mann (KS), Michael Burgess (TX), Mary E. Miller 

(IL), Tim Walberg (MI), Jay Obernolte (CA), Michael 

V. Lawler (NY), Gus M. Bilirakis (FL), Glenn ‘‘GT’’ 

Thompson (PA), Richard Hudson (NC), Nick 

Langworthy (NY), Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ Crawford (AR), 

Daniel Webster (FL), Rich McCormick (GA), Bill 

Posey (FL), Michael Guest (MS), Darrell Issa (CA), 

Tom Tiffany (WI), Roger Williams (TX), Russell Fry 

(SC), Warren Davidson (OH), Brad Finstad (MN), 

Ryan Zinke (MT), Chip Roy (TX), Eric Burlison 

(MO), Gary Palmer (AL), Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO), 

Michael Bost (IL), Pete Stauber (MN), David G. 

Valadao (CA), Scott Perry (PA), Lori ChavezDeremer (OR), and Ralph Norman (SC). Duplicate 

names have been removed from the list of 

signatories. 

91 ‘‘Senators Marshall et al.’’ refers to a joint 

comment from the following U.S. Senators: Roger 

Marshall (KS), Steve Daines (MT), John Barrasso 

(WY), Roger F. Wicker (MS), Todd Young (IN), Joni 

K. Ernst (IA), James E. Risch (ID), Cindy HydeSmith (MS), Markwayne Mullin (OK), John Hoeven 

(ND), James Lankford (OK), Ted Cruz (TX), and Bill 

Cassidy (LA). 

products, resulting in a 1.6-percent drop 

in gas cooking product shipments over 

this period. DOE also included the 

impact of local and State electrification 

policies that prohibit gas connections to 

new housing construction and would 

slightly increase shipments of electric 

cooking products. DOE notes that the 

impact of the IRA and local 

electrification policies is exogenous to 

the impact of an efficiency standard and 

is the same in the no-new-standards and 

standards cases. 

DOE received multiple comments 

from stakeholders regarding the impact 

standards may have in prompting 

consumers to switch fuel types for their 

cooking product. 

The AGs of LA et al.89 recommended 

that DOE consider whether regulation of 

gas cooking products will result in 

substitution to electric cooking 

products, with a corresponding increase 

in demand for electricity and attendant 

effects on a stretched power grid and 

pollution. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at 

p. 12) 

Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et 

al.90 stated that the consumer savings 

estimated in the February 2023 SNOPR 

for gas cooking tops do not justify the 

decreased features and functionality, 

and noted that these potential cost 

savings do not account for the cost of 

converting homes from gas to electric 

cooking, which Representatives 

McMorris-Rodgers et al. stated can total 

thousands of dollars per home. 

(Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et 

al., No. 765 at p. 2) 

NMHC and NAA recommended that 

DOE consider whether the electric grid 

is prepared for any anticipated increase 

in electrification needs as a result of a 

marketplace shift from gas cooking 

products to electric cooking products in 

response to the possible diminished 

availability of gas cooking products. 

(NMHC and NAA, No. 2265 at pp. 3–4) 

NPGA asserted that DOE’s analysis of 

payback and net cost percentage failed 

to account for the costs to consumers 

that will need to switch from gas to 

electric products as a result of a 

standard that eliminates products from 

the gas cooking market. (NPGA, No. 

2270 at p. 7) 

Senators Marshall et al.91 commented 

that the February 2023 SNOPR fails to 

account for fuel switching as a result of 

the proposed standards, which will 

likely compel consumers to switch fuels 

in order to purchase products that 

comply with the proposed standards. 

(Senators Marshall et al., No. 2277 at p. 

2) 

AGA commented that the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

would remove many popular features in 

gas cooking tops, such as HIR burners 

and cast-iron grates. (AGA, No. 2279 at 

pp. 41–43) AGA commented that such 

changes in features would impact 

consumer demand and customers may 

switch away from gas cooking tops at 

potentially great economic expense 

because of insufficient gas options 

available to fit their current needs. (Id.) 

AGA added that additional expenses to 

electrify a natural gas kitchen, 

potentially thousands of dollars, were 

not included in DOE’s analysis; DOE 

only accounted for the cost to replace or 

hook up a new cooking top. 

APGA commented that the lack of 

utility arising from the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, 

coupled with IRA rebates to incentivize 

individuals to purchase electric cooking 

products, could result in less gas 

cooking products being shipped in the 

future, which would further decrease 

the benefits of the proposed rule. 

(APGA, No. 2283 at p. 6) 

Whirlpool commented that the market 

elimination of gas cooking products 

threatens to cause a substantial problem 

for consumers who are encouraged to 

switch from gas to electric cooking 

products without financial relief from 

the potentially higher operating costs 

from using electricity as the fuel source. 

(Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 5) 

Consumers’ Research also commented 

that a standard that prompts consumers 

to switch from gas cooking tops to 

electric cooking products would lead to 

higher consumer operating costs due to 

a higher cost for electricity relative to 

gas. (Consumers’ Research, No. 2267 at 

p. 3) 

ONE Gas commented that DOE does 

not adequately account for the cost 

impact to consumers of fuel switching 

and inadequately addresses statutory 

prohibitions for setting minimum 

efficiency standards that would lead to 

fuel switching. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at 

pp. 11–15; ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) 

ONE Gas commented that most gas 

cooking top products will need redesign 

to meet standards set at EL 2, and the 

added cost passed on to consumers for 

gas cooking top products will compel 

further fuel switching by consumers. 

(Id.) ONE Gas stated this would be 

particularly impactful to low-income 

consumers that cannot afford the cost to 

transition to an electric cooking 

product. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that 

fuel switching and elimination of 

consumer choice is anticompetitive and 

contrary to EPCA. (Id.) ONE Gas further 

commented that DOE’s logic in not 

conducting a fuel switching analysis is 

flawed and represents a departure from 

previous analyses of gas cooking 

products. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that 

DOE should conduct a fuel switching 

analysis for all standards levels to meet 

EPCA’s need to minimize fuel 

switching. (Id.) 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, ONE Gas commented that the 

elimination of gas cooking top models 

as a result of the IAEC levels analyzed 

in the August 2023 NODA would likely 

lead to fuel switching as the only means 

of product availability to price-sensitive 

consumers. (ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 

4) ONE Gas noted that fuel switching 

programs are prohibited and restricted 

in several territories. (Id.) ONE Gas 

commented that DOE should issue an 

SNOPR that incorporates the updated 

efficiency levels from the NODA and 

that it requests the ability to provide 

analysis of fuel switching and other 

impacts to consumers. (Id.) 

In this direct final rule, DOE is 

adopting TSL 1, the Recommended TSL 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11485 

92 ‘‘CEI et al.’’ refers to a joint comment from 

Competitive Enterprise Institute, Project 21, Caesar 

Rodney Institute, Center of the American 

Experiment, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 

Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, 

Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, 

Roughrider Policy Center, Heartland Institute, Eagle 

Forum, Rio Grande Foundation, Cornwall Alliance, 

Conservative Caucus, Science and Environmental 

Policy Project, 60 Plus Association, Energy & 

Environment Legal Institute, Consumers’ Research, 

Institute for Energy Research, FreedomWorks, 

Independent Women’s Forum, John Locke 

Foundation, America First Policy Institute, 

Leadership Institute, Center for Urban Renewal and 

Education, Association of Mature American 

Citizens Action, Free Enterprise Project, Americans 

for Prosperity, Conservative Partnership Institute, 

American Constitutional Rights Union Action, 

Becky Norton Dunlop, Faith Wins, and The 

Heritage Foundation. 

93 ‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to consumers 

of the product being regulated. 

94The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 States 

and U.S. territories. 

described in the Joint Agreement. For 

gas cooking products, TSL 1 

corresponds to EL 1. DOE estimates that 

97 percent of the gas cooking top market 

currently meets or exceeds the 

efficiency of EL 1, ensuring that 

consumers will have access to gas 

cooking tops with the full range of 

product features in the first year of 

compliance. Furthermore, DOE notes 

that the incremental cost increase for EL 

1 relative to the baseline is $4.04 

(calculated in 2028, the first year of 

compliance), which is less than 1 

percent of the installed cost of a 

baseline gas cooking top and far too 

small to incentivize switching to an 

electric cooking top. For these reasons, 

DOE is assuming in this direct final rule 

analysis that consumers will not switch 

fuel types as a result of the standard 

and, as such, has not included fuel 

switching in this direct final rule 

analysis. 

Whirlpool stated that, according to a 

survey it conducted in 2013, most 

consumers prefer to replace their 

current cooking top with one that uses 

the same fuel source, and they may not 

be willing to trade their gas cooking 

appliance for one that does not meet 

their needs or preferences. (Whirlpool, 

No. 2284 at pp. 6, 9) Whirlpool 

commented that this could disrupt the 

normal appliance replacement cycle and 

cause consumers to delay purchases as 

long as possible, which will result in the 

reduction of the standard’s potential 

efficiency savings. (Id.) 

DOE agrees that consumers are most 

likely to replace their current cooking 

top with one that uses the same fuel. 

The adopted standard for gas cooking 

tops, the Recommended TSL described 

in the Joint Agreement, is expected to 

preserve the features identified by 

manufacturers and individual 

commenters as important to consumers, 

as demonstrated by products from 

multiple manufacturers in the expanded 

test sample, and will not disrupt the 

consumer appliance replacement cycle. 

CEI et al.92 commented that many 

consumer and environmental 

organizations are enthusiastic about the 

promise of induction cooking tops, a 

potentially more energy-efficient type of 

electric cooking top they claim offers 

numerous advantages for consumers, 

but such products would gain market 

share with or without the proposed rule, 

casting further doubt as to the 

significance of any marginal energy 

savings from agency action. (CEI et al., 

No. 2287 at pp. 5–6) CEI et al. 

commented that the emergence of 

induction cooking tops further militates 

against a finding of significant energy 

savings as required under EPCA. (Id.) 

DOE agrees that the market share for 

induction products is likely to grow 

over the shipments analysis period. 

However, DOE’s expanded test sample 

indicates that radiant electric smooth 

element cooking tops span much of the 

same range of efficiencies as induction 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

(see testing results in chapter 5 of this 

direct final rule TSD). As such, an 

energy-efficiency standard will reduce 

energy consumption across both 

product technologies. 

DOE considered the impact of 

standards on product shipments. DOE 

concluded that it is unlikely that the 

price increase due to the proposed 

standards would impact the decision to 

install a cooking product in the new 

construction market. In the replacement 

market, DOE assumed that, in response 

to an increased product price, some 

consumers will choose to repair their 

old cooking product and extend its 

lifetime instead of replacing it 

immediately. DOE estimated the 

magnitude of such impact through a 

purchase price elasticity of demand. 

The estimated price elasticity of –0.367 

is based on data for cooking products as 

described in appendix 9A of the TSD for 

this direct final rule. This elasticity 

relates the repair or replace decision to 

the incremental installed cost of higher 

efficiency cooking products. DOE 

estimated that the average extension of 

life of the repaired unit would be 5 

years, and then that unit will be 

replaced with a new cooking product. 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, AHAM commented that DOE’s 

price elasticity estimate used in 

consumers’ repair-replace decisions is 

an aggregate value that averages over the 

impact to consumer subgroups. (AHAM, 

No. 10116 at p. 29) AHAM requested 

DOE identify the consumer subgroups 

impacted by a higher price associated 

with a standard. (Id.) 

DOE is unaware of a source that 

provides the necessary data 

disaggregated by household income 

needed to reliably estimate price 

elasticity by household income level 

and commenters did not provide such 

data. Available data is only available at 

the national level allowing DOE to 

estimate the aggregate impact to product 

shipments (see appendix 9A of the 

direct final rule TSD for details). DOE 

notes that the adopted standard at the 

Recommended TSL is expected to 

increase the average price of a cooking 

top in the first year of compliance 

(2028) by $4 and of an oven by $3, 

resulting in minimal impacts across all 

consumer subgroups. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (‘‘NES’’) and the NPV from a 

national perspective of total consumer 93

costs and savings that would be 

expected to result from new or amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels.94

DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the 

potential standard levels considered 

based on projections of annual product 

shipments, along with the annual 

energy consumption and total installed 

cost data from the energy use and LCC 

analyses. For the present analysis, DOE 

projected the energy savings, operating 

cost savings, product costs, and NPV of 

consumer benefits over the lifetime of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products sold from 2027 through 2056 

for TSLs other than TSL 1 and 2028 

through 2057 for TSL 1 (the 

Recommended TSL detailed in the Joint 

Agreement). 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11486 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

95For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2023, DOE/EIA–0581(2023), May 2023. Available at 

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/overview/pdf/ 

0581(2023).pdf (last accessed Aug. 3, 2023). 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each TSL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.30 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the direct final rule. 

Discussion of these inputs and methods 

follows the table. See chapter 10 of the 

direct final rule TSD for further details. 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the year 

of anticipated compliance with a new or 

amended standard. DOE assumed a 

static efficiency distribution over the 

shipments analysis period. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective. In this scenario, the 

market shares of products in the nonew-standards case that do not meet the 

standard under consideration would 

‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new standard 

level, and the market share of products 

above the standard would remain 

unchanged. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The national energy savings analysis 

involves a comparison of national 

energy consumption of the considered 

products between each potential 

standards case (‘‘TSL’’) and the case 

with no new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE calculated 

the national energy consumption by 

multiplying the number of units (stock) 

of each product (by vintage or age) by 

the unit energy consumption (also by 

vintage). DOE calculated annual NES 

based on the difference in national 

energy consumption for the no-newstandards case and for each higher 

efficiency standard case. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based 

on site energy and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to 

primary energy (i.e., the energy 

consumed by power plants to generate 

site electricity) using annual conversion 

factors derived from AEO2023. For 

natural gas, primary energy is the same 

as site energy. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

sometimes associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to consumer conventional 

cooking products and assumed there 

would be no rebound due to a standard. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011, notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in which DOE 

explained its determination that EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool 

for its FFC analysis and its intention to 

use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public 

domain, multi-sector, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector 95 that EIA uses to prepare its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.037</GPH>

Table IV.30 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact Analysis 

Inputs Method 

Shipments Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance Date of Standard 2028 for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2027 for all other 

TSLs 

Efficiency Trends No-new-standards case: No efficiency trend 

Standard cases: No efficiency trend 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at 

each TSL. 

Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each 

Total Installed Cost per Unit TSL. 

Incorporates projection of future product prices based on 

historical data. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual 

energy consumption per unit and energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit Annual values do not change with efficiency level. 

Energy Price Trends AEO 2023 projections (to 2050) and value fixed to average 

between 2046-2050 prices thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 202 3. Conversion 

Discount Rate Three and seven percent. 

Present Year 2024 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11487 

96Electric household ranges, ovens, surface 

cooking units and equipment PPI series ID: 

PCU33522033522011; www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

97 Gas household ranges, ovens, surface cooking 

units, and equipment PPI series ID; 

PCU33522033522013; www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production and 

delivery in the case of natural gas 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

of the direct final rule TSD. 

The CO2 Coalition requested 

additional detailed information 

regarding DOE’s FFC measures. (CO2

Coalition, No. 2275 at pp. 6–7) The CO2

Coalition additionally asserted that it 

could not find an explanation as to why 

DOE used FFC measurement when 

EPCA states that appliance energy 

conservation standards should be 

measured using ‘‘the quantity of energy 

directly consumed by a consumer 

product at point of use.’’ (Id.) 

The definition cited by the CO2

Coalition refers to the energy use of a 

covered product, determined in 

accordance with test procedures. In a 

statement of policy published on August 

18, 2011, DOE announced its intention 

to use FFC measures in its analysis, and 

DOE noted that it will continue to set 

energy conservation standards for 

covered products based on energy 

consumption at the point-of-use, as 

required by EPCA, as amended. 76 FR 

51284. EPCA requires DOE, in 

determining the economic justification 

of a standard, to consider the total 

projected energy savings that are 

expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 

EPCA states that the term ‘‘energy’’ 

means electricity, or fossil fuels. DOE 

maintains that proper consideration of 

total energy savings should include the 

full fuel cycle. 

Fall commented that the evolving 

share of renewables in electricity 

generation should be accounted for in 

the analysis, based on the EIA’s 

AEO2022. (Fall, No. 376 at pp. 1–3) 

For this direct final rule, DOE utilized 

EIA’s AEO2023, which incorporates an 

increasing share of renewables in 

electricity generation, to derive FFC 

factors. See appendix 10B of the direct 

final rule TSD for details. 

NPGA supported DOE’s decision to 

use FFC to provide a comprehensive 

analysis of national energy savings. 

(NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 6) 

Multiple commenters stated that the 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR would lead to increased 

overall full-fuel-cycle energy 

consumption due to consumers that will 

have to switch from gas to electric 

products. Spire commented that the 

proposed standards will promote fuel 

switching to electric appliances due the 

elimination of features and performance 

characteristics that cause many 

consumers to prefer gas, and added that 

any such proposed standards are in 

contradiction to EPCA. (Spire, No. 2710 

at pp. 26–30) Spire commented that fuel 

switching would result in greater overall 

energy consumption and carbon 

emissions when accounting for the FFC 

energy associated with electric 

appliances relative to gas appliances. 

(Id.) NPGA commented that the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR will result in the replacement of 

gas cooking products with electric 

cooking products that consume more 

energy when including the energy 

required to generate and transmit the 

site electricity. (NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 

4–5) AGA commented that the result of 

DOE’s proposed standards will be an 

increase in source energy usage due to 

AGA’s assessment that the elimination 

of certain cooking tops from the market 

will likely result in the gas appliances 

being replaced with electric resistance 

appliances. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 45– 

46) 

As described in section IV.G of this 

document, DOE maintains that 

consumers will not switch fuels as a 

result of the adopted standard. 

ONE Gas commented that DOE has 

placed improper emphasis upon site 

energy consumption calculations as the 

basis for consumer and national energy 

savings. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 7– 

8) ONE Gas commented that, as the 

National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine (‘‘NAS’’) 

concluded in 2009, using the FFC 

metric would provide the public with 

more comprehensive information about 

the impacts of energy consumption on 

the environment, the economy, and 

other national concerns while noting 

that DOE used site energy consumption 

analysis that reflects the energy used in 

generating and distributing electricity, 

natural gas, or oil in addition to the 

energy used by the appliance at the site. 

(Id.) ONE Gas commented that 14 years 

after NAS recommended that DOE move 

to the FFC measure of energy 

consumption for assessment of national 

and environmental impacts, especially 

levels of GHGs, DOE still has not fully 

implemented FFC. (Id.) ONE Gas 

acknowledged that DOE accounts for 

FFC energy savings for entire TSLs and 

energy and emissions associated with 

the TSL level of aggregation, but it does 

not do so for design options 

independently or across consumer fuel 

types. (Id.) ONE Gas commented that 

the incomplete use of FFC savings as a 

metric leads to biased analysis and 

interpretation of proposed minimum 

efficiency standards for conventional 

consumer cooking appliances. (Id.) 

DOE’s use of the FFC metric is 

consistent with the NAS 

recommendations and EPCA 

requirements. Using site energy rather 

than FFC measures for design options 

and consumer energy use is appropriate 

because it serves the purpose of 

allowing estimation of the economic 

impacts of potential standards on 

consumers in the LCC and PBP analysis. 

The FFC metric is appropriate at the 

level of the national impact analysis 

where the purpose is to estimate the 

total energy savings and environmental 

impacts from potential standards. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 

document, DOE developed price trends 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products based on a power-law fit of 

historical PPI data and cumulative 

shipments. For the electric cooking 

products price trend, DOE used the 

‘‘Electric household ranges, ovens, 

surface cooking units and equipment’’ 

PPI for 1967–2022.96 For the gas cooking 

product price trend, DOE used the ‘‘Gas 

household ranges, ovens, surface 

cooking units and equipment’’ for 1981– 

2022.97 DOE applied the same trends to 

project prices for each product class at 

each considered efficiency level. By 

2057, which is the end date of the 

projection period for the Recommended 

TSL detailed in the Joint Agreement, the 

average product price is projected to 

drop 16 percent relative to 2028 for 

electric cooking products, and 20 

percent for gas cooking products. DOE’s 

projection of product prices is described 

in chapter 8 of the TSD for this direct 

final rule. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11488 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

98U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. Available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-foragencies/circulars (last accessed January 4, 2024). 

DOE used the prior version of Circular A–4 

(September 17, 2003) in accordance with the 

effective date of the November 9, 2023, version. 

investigated the impact of different 

product price projections on the 

consumer NPV for the considered TSLs 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. In addition to the default 

price trend, DOE considered two 

product price sensitivity cases: (1) a 

high price decline case based on a 

learning rate derived from subset of PPI 

data for the period 1993–2022 for 

electric cooking products and the period 

1981–2004 for gas cooking products and 

(2) a low price decline case based on a 

learning rate derived from a subset of 

PPI data from the period of 1967–1992 

for electric cooking products and the 

period 2005–2022 for gas cooking 

products. The derivation of these price 

trends and the results of these 

sensitivity cases are described in 

appendix 10C of the TSD for this direct 

final rule. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings, which are calculated using 

the estimated energy savings in each 

year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes in the Reference case from 

AEO2023, which has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, the 2046–2050 average was used 

for all years. As part of the NIA, DOE 

also analyzed scenarios that used inputs 

from variants of the AEO2023 Reference 

case that have lower and higher 

economic growth. Those cases have 

lower and higher energy price trends 

compared to the Reference case. NIA 

results based on these cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this direct final 

rule, DOE estimated the NPV of 

consumer benefits using both a 3- 

percent and a 7-percent real discount 

rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 

accordance with guidance provided by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) to Federal agencies on the 

development of regulatory analysis.98

The discount rates for the determination 

of NPV are in contrast to the discount 

rates used in the LCC analysis, which 

are designed to reflect a consumer’s 

perspective. The 7-percent real value is 

an estimate of the average before-tax rate 

of return to private capital in the U.S. 

economy. The 3-percent real value 

represents the ‘‘social rate of time 

preference,’’ which is the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. For this direct final rule, DOE 

analyzed the impacts of the considered 

standard levels on two subgroups: (1) 

low-income households and (2) senioronly households. 

For low-income households, the 

analysis used a subset of the RECS 2020 

sample composed of low-income 

households. DOE separately analyzed 

different groups in the low-income 

household sample using data from RECS 

on home ownership status and on who 

pays the energy bill. Low-income 

homeowners are analyzed equivalently 

to how they are analyzed in the 

standard LCC analysis. Low-income 

renters who do not pay their energy bill 

are assumed to not be impacted by any 

new or amended standards. In this case, 

the landlord purchases the appliance 

and pays its operating costs, so is 

effectively the consumer and the renter 

is not impacted. Low-income renters 

who do pay their energy bill are 

assumed to incur no first cost. DOE 

made this assumption to acknowledge 

that the vast majority of low-income 

renters will not pay to have their 

conventional cooking product 

replaced—such replacement would be 

up to the landlord. 

Whirlpool commented that the 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR will disproportionately 

affect low-income consumers and 

elderly individuals living on a fixed 

income. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 5) 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, AHAM commented that DOE 

has not performed a distributional 

analysis that accounts for the burdens to 

low-income households for whom 

increased prices may result in 

cumulative financial burden. (AHAM, 

No. 10116 at pp. 25–26) AHAM stated 

that DOE’s analyses fail to account for 

the economic impacts to subgroups that 

may be disproportionately impacted by 

regulations due to increased first costs. 

(Id.) AHAM further commented that 

DOE has not modeled consumer choice 

to discern how proposed standards 

would influence consumer decisions to 

retain older, less energy efficient 

appliances. (Id.) In particular, AHAM 

stated that low-income consumers are 

not in a financial condition that might 

prepare them to invest in higher price 

durable goods, particularly if energy 

savings are slight and may not be 

achieved for many years. (Id.) 

As noted above, many low-income 

consumers are renters who are not 

expected to pay the incremental cost 

due to an amended standard. For lowincome homeowners who are expected 

to bear that incremental cost, the 

analysis incorporates the higher 

incremental costs at each considered 

TSL. In the aggregate, DOE finds that 

low-income consumers have higher 

average LCC savings and lower payback 

periods relative to the general 

population. At the adopted TSL in this 

direct final rule, the average increase in 

incremental first cost relative to the 

baseline level the low-income 

consumers (including both renters and 

home-owners) is $2 for cooking tops and 

$1 for ovens, which is unlikely to 

influence consumers’ decisions to repair 

or retain older, less efficient units. 

Additionally, DOE finds that the 

consumer impacts to senior-only 

households are similar to the national 

population with positive LCC savings 

and a less than 1 percent of senior-only 

households experience a net cost at the 

adopted TSL. DOE presents the results 

of low-income and senior-only subgroup 

analyses in section V.B.1.b of this 

document. 

AHAM commented that DOE has 

done nothing to determine to what 

degree split-incentive situations 

(landlord purchases efficient appliance 

while tenant pays the utility bill) occur 

or analyzed fully the effects of tighter 

standards on other potential landlord 

behavior, such as continuing to repair 

old appliances or resorting to used 

appliances. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 48– 

49) 

The existence of a split incentive 

across a substantial number of U.S. 

households, in which a tenant pays for 

the cost of electricity while the building 

owner furnishes appliances, has been 

identified through a number of studies 

of residential appliance and equipment 

use broadly. Building from early work 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11489 

99B. Jaffe and R.N. Stavins (1994) The energyefficiency gap What does it mean? Energy Policy, 

22 (10) 804–810, 10.1016/0301–4215(94)90138–4. 

100Murtishaw, S., & Sathaye, J. (2006). 

Quantifying the Effect of the Principal-Agent 

Problem on US Residential Energy Use. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. Retrieved from 

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6f14t11t. 

101C.A. Spurlock and K.S. Fujita (2022) Equity 

implications of market structure and appliance 

energy efficiency regulation, Energy Policy, 

165(112943), doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112943. 102 Id. 

103Available at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. 

104Available at www.census.gov/programssurveys/asm/data/tables.html. 

105Available at app.avention.com. 

including Jaffe and Stavins 99 and 

Murtishaw and Sathaye 100 discussed 

the presence of landlord–tenant split 

incentives (i.e., the ‘‘principal-agent 

problem’’). Spurlock and Fujita 101

showed that 87 percent of low-income 

individuals who rented their homes 

were found to pay the electricity bill 

resulting from their energy use, such 

that they were likely subject to a 

scenario in which their landlord 

purchased the appliance, but they paid 

the operating costs. DOE notes that there 

continues to be a lack of data to 

corroborate the notion that landlords 

pass on some, or all, of increased 

appliance costs to tenants. Additionally, 

DOE notes that the shipment-weighted 

average incremental first cost increase to 

landlords at the adopted standard 

relative to the baseline level is $3 and 

unlikely to impact landlord behavior. 

DOE has continued to analyze lowincome renters under the assumption 

that they pay no upfront costs under an 

amended standard in this direct final 

rule. 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

assess distributional consumer impacts 

thoroughly prior to promulgation of 

energy standards to minimize harm to 

subpopulations. (AHAM, No. 10116 at 

pp. 26–29) AHAM asserted that 

previous research shows disparate 

impacts based on household income 

and ability to pay for appliance 

upgrades required by regulatory 

requirements. (Id.) AHAM commented 

that DOE standards should be assessed 

for regressive impacts on low- and 

middle-income households. (Id.) 

DOE’s low-income LCC subgroup 

analysis uses inputs specific to lowincome consumers to estimate the 

impact of adopted standards. 

Additionally, DOE notes that there is 

evidence that prior efficiency standards, 

by acting on a market substantially more 

complex than the simplified model of 

perfect competition, have aligned with 

improvements in efficiency (and in 

some cases additional product 

attributes) while maintaining a constant 

price for baseline products. For 

example, Spurlock and Fujita (2022) 

examined appliance point of sales data 

and noted that the 2004 and 2007 

clothes washer efficiency standards 

were associated with 30-percent 

increase in product efficiency 

contemporaneous with no change in 

average price within the baseline market 

segment.102

Chapter 11 in the direct final rule TSD 

describes the consumer subgroup 

analysis. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impacts of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products and to 

estimate the potential impacts of such 

standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 

both quantitative and qualitative aspects 

and includes analyses of projected 

industry cash flows, the INPV, 

investments in research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how new and amended 

energy conservation standards might 

affect manufacturing employment, 

capacity, and competition, as well as 

how standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, 

including small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant products. The key 

GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is 

the sum of industry annual cash flows 

over the analysis period, discounted 

using the industry-weighted average 

cost of capital, and the impact to 

domestic manufacturing employment. 

The model uses standard accounting 

principles to estimate the impacts of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV and 

domestic manufacturing employment 

between a no-new-standards case and 

the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs). 

To capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategies 

following new and amended standards, 

the GRIM estimates a range of possible 

impacts under different manufacturer 

markup scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the consumer conventional cooking 

products manufacturing industry based 

on the market and technology 

assessment, preliminary manufacturer 

interviews, and publicly available 

information. This included a top-down 

analysis of consumer conventional 

cooking products manufacturers that 

DOE used to derive preliminary 

financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., 

revenues; materials, labor, overhead, 

and depreciation expenses; selling, 

general, and administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). DOE 

also used public sources of information 

to further calibrate its initial 

characterization of the consumer 

conventional cooking products 

manufacturing industry, including 

company filings of form 10–K from the 

SEC,103 corporate annual reports, the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s ‘‘Economic 

Census,’’ 104 and reports from D&B 

Hoovers.105

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses several 

factors to determine a series of annual 

cash flows starting with the 

announcement of standards and 

extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of 

standards. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products in order 

to develop other key GRIM inputs, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11490 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

106For the no-new-standards case and all TSLs 

except the Recommended TSL, the analysis period 

ranges from 2024–2056. For the Recommended 

TSL, the analysis period ranges from 2024–2057. 

107 Id. 

108 DOE updated the hourly wage from 2021 data 

used in the February 2023 SNOPR to 2022 data 

used in this direct final rule. 

including product and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, 

DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by new 

and amended standards or that may not 

be accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers, niche players, 

and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that largely differs from the 

industry average. DOE identified two 

manufacturer subgroups for a separate 

impact analysis: premium product 

manufacturers and small businesses. 

The premium product manufacturer 

subgroup is discussed in section V.B.2.d 

of this document. The small business 

subgroup is discussed in section chapter 

12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to new or 

amended standards that result in a 

higher or lower industry value. The 

GRIM uses a standard, annual 

discounted cash flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. The 

GRIM models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that could 

result from a new and amended energy 

conservation standard. The GRIM 

spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at 

a series of annual cash flows, beginning 

in 2024 (the base year of the analysis) 

and continuing 30 years after the 

analyzed compliance year.106 DOE 

calculated INPVs by summing the 

stream of annual discounted cash flows 

during this period. For manufacturers of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, DOE used a real discount rate 

of 9.1 percent, which was derived from 

industry financials and then modified 

according to feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the new and amended energy 

conservation standard on 

manufacturers. As discussed previously, 

DOE developed critical GRIM inputs 

using a number of sources, including 

publicly available data, results of the 

engineering analysis, and information 

gathered from industry stakeholders 

during the course of manufacturer 

interviews. The GRIM results are 

presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. Additional details about the 

GRIM, the discount rate, and other 

financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

products is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline products 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the MPCs of covered 

products can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry. 

In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs 

calculated in the engineering analysis as 

described in section IV.C of this 

document and further detailed in 

chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. 

For this direct final rule analysis, DOE 

used a design-option approach 

supported by testing and supplemented 

by reverse engineering (physical 

teardowns and testing of existing 

products in the market) to identify the 

incremental cost and efficiency 

improvement associated with each 

design option or design option 

combination. DOE used these updated 

MPCs from the engineering analysis in 

this MIA. 

For a complete description of the 

MPCs, see chapter 5 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment projections derived from the 

updated shipments analysis from the 

base year (2024) to the end of the 

analysis period (30 years after the 

analyzed compliance date).107 See 

chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD for 

additional details. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

New and amended energy 

conservation standards could cause 

manufacturers to incur conversion costs 

to bring their production facilities and 

product designs into compliance. DOE 

evaluated the level of conversion-related 

expenditures that would be needed to 

comply with each considered efficiency 

level in each product class. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these conversion costs 

into two major groups: (1) product 

conversion costs; and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change 

existing production facilities such that 

new compliant product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

To evaluate the level of product 

conversion costs manufacturers would 

likely incur to comply with new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE estimated the number of 

consumer conventional cooking product 

models currently on the market, the 

efficiency distribution of those models 

on the market, the estimated testing cost 

to test to the DOE test procedure (for 

cooking tops only), and the estimated 

per model R&D costs to redesign a noncompliant model into a compliant 

model for each analyzed efficiency 

level. 

DOE used the same number of 

consumer conventional cooking models 

that were identified in the February 

2023 SNOPR for this direct final rule 

MIA. DOE used the efficiency 

distribution from the updated 

shipments analysis for this direct final 

rule MIA. DOE updated the per model 

testing cost and per model R&D cost 

based on updated wage data from the 

BLS.108 DOE revised the per model R&D 

costs for gas cooking tops to reflect the 

updated direct final rule engineering 

analysis. DOE then combined the per 

model testing and R&D costs with the 

number of models that would need to be 

tested and redesigned to estimate the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11491 

109 88 FR 6818, 6863. 

110For TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL), the 

modeled compliance date is 2028. For the 

remaining TSLs, the modeled compliance date is 

2027. 

industry product conversion costs. 

Lastly, DOE updated all conversion cost 

estimates from 2021 dollars that were 

used in the February 2023 SNOPR to 

2022 dollars for this direct final rule 

analysis. 

Whirlpool commented that the 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR are not economically 

justified and that DOE must account for 

the costs that manufacturers will bear in 

developing and marketing products to 

meet these energy conservation 

standards. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 

4–5) Whirlpool stated that it could not 

identify a single gas cooking top or 

range model in its product line that 

meets the gas cooking top standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 

(Id.) Whirlpool stated that a significant 

time investment and an expensive 

product redesign would be required to 

bring gas cooking tops into compliance 

with the gas cooking top standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 

(Id.) Whirlpool commented that DOE’s 

projected conversion cost of $183.4 

million in the February 2023 SNOPR 

reflects flaws in analysis. (Id.) 

Specifically, Whirlpool commented that 

DOE’s approximation that half of all gas 

cooking top models currently on the 

market are compliant with the gas 

cooking top standard proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR contradict DOE’s 

conclusion in the February 2023 SNOPR 

TSD that only about 4 percent of gas 

cooking tops on the market meet or 

exceed the proposed standard of EL 2. 

(Id.) Thus, Whirlpool stated that DOE’s 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis does not 

reflect the true cost to manufacturers of 

complying with the standards proposed 

in the February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.) 

Conversely, the CA IOUs stated that 

the MIA from the February 2023 SNOPR 

accurately accounts for the significant 

investments manufacturers must make 

to comply with the standards proposed 

in the February 2023 SNOPR. (CA IOUs, 

No. 2278 at p. 2) The CA IOUs 

commented that DOE appropriately 

balances the significant costs to 

manufacturers to retool and redesign 

products to meet the standard against 

the significant consumer benefits from 

the standard. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated 

that DOE’s analysis shows 

manufacturers can make more efficient 

gas cooking tops at an incremental cost 

to consumers while saving consumers 

significant money over the lifetime of 

the cooking top. (Id.) 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.a of 

this document, DOE updated the 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops for 

this direct final rule analysis. The 

conversion costs calculated for this 

direct final rule reflect these updated 

efficiency levels for the gas cooking top 

product class. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

direct final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new and amended standards. The 

conversion cost figures used in the 

GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of 

this document. For additional 

information on the estimated capital 

and product conversion costs, see 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied non-production 

cost markups to the MPCs estimated in 

the engineering analysis for each 

product class and efficiency level. 

Modifying these markups in the 

standards case yields different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 

DOE modeled two standards-case 

markup scenarios to represent 

uncertainty regarding the potential 

impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of new and amended 

energy conservation standards: (1) a 

preservation of gross margin scenario; 

and (2) a preservation of operating profit 

scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different markup values that, when 

applied to the MPCs, result in varying 

revenue and cash flow impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin scenario, DOE applied the same 

‘‘gross margin percentage’’ across all 

efficiency levels in the standards cases 

that is used in the no-new-standards 

case, which assumes that manufacturers 

would be able to maintain the same 

amount of profit as a percentage of 

revenues at all efficiency levels within 

a product class. DOE continued to use 

a manufacturer markup of 1.20 for all 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, which corresponds to a 17 

percent gross margin percentage and the 

same manufacturer markup that was 

used in the February 2023 SNOPR.109

This manufacturer markup scenario 

represents the upper bound to industry 

profitability under new and amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, DOE modeled a 

situation in which manufacturers are 

not able to increase per-unit operating 

profit in proportion to increases in 

manufacturer production costs. Under 

this scenario, as the MPCs increase, 

manufacturers reduce their margins (on 

a percentage basis) to a level that 

maintains the no-new-standards case 

operating profit (in absolute dollars). 

The implicit assumption behind this 

scenario is that the industry can only 

maintain its operating profit in absolute 

dollars after compliance with new and 

amended standards. Therefore, 

operating profit in percentage terms is 

reduced between the no-new-standards 

case and the analyzed standards cases. 

DOE adjusted the margins in the GRIM 

at each TSL to yield approximately the 

same earnings before interest and taxes 

in the standards cases in the year after 

the compliance date of the new and 

amended standards as in the no-newstandards case.110 This scenario 

represents the lower bound to industry 

profitability under new and amended 

energy conservation standards. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two markup 

scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a 

of this document. 

3. Comments From Interested Parties 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding its manufacturer impact 

analysis presented in the February 2023 

SNOPR. The approach used for this 

direct final rule is largely the same 

approach DOE had used for the 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis. 

Several interested parties commented 

on DOE’s February 2023 SNOPR MIA. 

These comments were made either in 

writing during the comment period 

following the publication of the 

February 2023 SNOPR or during the 

consumer conventional cooking 

products public meeting for the 

February 2023 SNOPR. 

NPGA stated that in the February 

2023 SNOPR, DOE identified only one 

model of gas cooking top that meets the 

proposed standard for gas cooking tops. 

(NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 10) NPGA stated 

that this eliminates competition and 

creates an unfair, government-assisted 

advantage to the manufacturer of this 

particular model and risks that the 

market will be monopolized by a few 

select manufacturers. (Id.) AGA also 

stated that lessening of competition will 

have monopolistic consequences for 

those manufacturers who remain in 

business and drive-up prices for 

consumers who will have only 4 percent 

of gas cooking tops remaining. (AGA, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11492 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

111Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). 

112U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

External Combustion Sources. In Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors. AP–42. Fifth Edition. 

Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 

Chapter 1. Available at www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors#Proposed/ (last accessed July 12, 

2021). 

113 ‘‘ANHE et al.’’ refers to a joint comment from 

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, 

American Lung Association, Association of Public 

Health Laboratories, Asthma and Allergy 

Foundation of America, Climate Psychiatry 

Alliance, Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research, 

Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, 

Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, 

National Association of Pediatric Nurse 

Practitioners, National League for Nursing, National 

Medical Association, and Physicians for Social 

Responsibility. 

No. 2279 at pp. 24–26) Additionally, 

Senators Marshall et al. stated that the 

February 2023 SNOPR proposed 

standards are anticompetitive and will 

likely lead to manufacturers leaving the 

market. (Marshall et al., No. 2277 at pp. 

1–2) 

Consumers’ Research noted that 

DOE’s February 2023 SNOPR analysis 

does not include data to justify the 

claim that most of the gas cooking top 

models currently on the market are 

capable of being redesigned to meet the 

standard for gas cooking tops that was 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 

(Consumers’ Research, No. 2267 at pp. 

1–2) Consumers’ Research commented 

that the largest share of DOE’s estimated 

INPV costs from the February 2023 

SNOPR would fall on gas cooking 

product manufacturers, as they produce 

the overwhelming majority of the 

models that will require redesign to 

meet the standards proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.) Consumers’ 

Research commented that due to 

increased costs concentrated on gas 

cooking product manufacturers, some 

manufacturers will likely have a 

negative cash flow if the standards 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

are adopted. (Id.) Consumers’ Research 

stated that they believe the standard for 

gas cooking tops that was proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR will prompt 

companies to decrease product lines or 

leave the market altogether, thereby 

limiting consumer choice by decreasing 

market competition. (Id.) 

Conversely, the CA IOUs stated that 

cooking tops do not currently have 

minimum performance standards or 

efficiency labels and are not currently 

subject to a voluntary ENERGY STAR 

specification, nor are manufacturers 

incentivized to produce more efficient 

cooking tops or provide consumers with 

energy-efficiency information. (CA 

IOUs, No. 2278 at p. 2) The CA IOUs 

commented that these market failures 

mean consumers have no ability to 

choose a more efficient cooking top 

because they lack both the available 

options and the information to do so. 

(Id.) 

Based on comments received in 

response to the February 2023 SNOPR, 

DOE further examined the potential 

impacts of the gas cooking top market in 

this direct final rule analysis and agrees 

that there would likely be a significant 

impact to the gas cooking top market if 

DOE adopted the standards for the gas 

cooking tops that were proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. As discussed in 

section IV.C.1.a of this document, DOE 

updated the efficiency levels for gas 

cooking tops for this direct final rule 

analysis. Additionally, in section 

V.B.2.c of this document, DOE further 

discusses the manufacturing capacity 

concerns and potential market 

disruption, including the potential for 

manufacturers to leave the gas cooking 

top market, if DOE were to adopt energy 

conservation standards at max-tech for 

gas cooking tops. 

NMHC and NAA stated that overly 

prescriptive directives for marginal 

efficiency gains will outpace the ability 

of the manufacturing sector and 

installation providers to alleviate 

existing product shortages and delays 

while creating new barriers to costeffective and timely appliance 

procurement. (NMHC and NAA, No. 

2265 at p. 3) NMHC and NAA stated 

their interest in preserving product 

choice and ensuring the flexibility to 

select those appliances that reflect the 

unique characteristics and wide array of 

multifamily building types and their 

residents. (Id.) 

As previously stated in this section, 

DOE updated the efficiency levels for 

gas cooking tops for this direct final rule 

from the efficiency levels used in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. As discussed in 

section IV.C.1.a of this document, the 

updated efficiency levels for gas cooking 

tops allow gas cooking tops to retain the 

presence of multiple HIR burners; 

continuous cast-iron grates; the ability 

to choose between nominal unit widths; 

the ability to have sealed burners; at 

least one LIR burner (i.e., with an input 

rate below 6,500 Btu/h); the ability to 

have multiple dual-stacked and/or 

multi-ring HIR burners; and at least one 

extra-high input rate burner (i.e., with 

an input rate above 18,000 Btu/h) at EL 

1, the adopted EL, thereby preserving 

consumer product choice for gas 

cooking tops. DOE discusses the 

potential impacts for manufacturing 

production capacity for gas cooking tops 

in section V.B.2.c of this document. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions in emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 

The analysis of electric power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses emissions intended to represent the 

marginal impacts of the change in 

electricity consumption associated with 

new or amended standards. The 

methodology is based on results 

published for the AEO, including a set 

of side cases that implement a variety of 

efficiency-related policies. The 

methodology is described in appendix 

13A in the direct final rule TSD. The 

analysis presented in this notice uses 

projections from AEO2023. Power sector 

emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel 

combustion are estimated using 

Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’).111

The on-site operation of consumer 

conventional cooking products involves 

combustion of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, CH4, and 

N2O where these products are used. Site 

emissions of these gases were estimated 

using Emission Factors for Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories and, for NOX and SO2,

emissions intensity factors from an EPA 

publication.112

DOE received several comments on 

the connection between gas stove 

efficiency and indoor air quality, and 

related health impacts. 

ANHE et al.113 commented that 

burned methane gas byproducts 

contribute to premature mortality and 

increase risk for a number of illnesses. 

(ANHE et al., No. 2276 at pp. 4–5) 

ANHE et al. further stated that a 

growing body of evidence shows an 

association between long-term exposure 

to air pollution and adverse birth 

outcomes, while short-term exposure to 

high levels of air pollution can 

exacerbate asthma and cardiopulmonary 

symptoms. (Id.) ANHE et al. commented 

that methane gas leaks pose risks to 

human health, stating that a recent 

study found consumer-grade natural gas 

contains at least 21 different hazardous 

air pollutants and that leaks can be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11493 

114 ‘‘The AGs of NY et al.’’ refers to a joint 

comment from the attorneys general of the States of 

New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and 

Washington, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts 

and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia; and 

the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York. 

undetectable by smell. ANHE et al. 

stated that higher efficiency burner 

systems correlate with more complete 

combustion and more efficient energy 

conversion. ANHE et al. noted that gas 

cooking products are not required to be 

vented outside and that most cooking 

top hood ventilation systems recirculate 

the air with only a moderate impact on 

immediate air quality. (Id.) 

ASAP et al. commented that the 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR would improve indoor air 

quality because higher efficiency burner 

systems correlate with more complete 

combustion, which reduces in-home gas 

combustion and therefore reduces 

exposure to pollutants that harm human 

health. (ASAP et al., No. 2273 at pp. 3– 

4) 

Sierra Club and Earthjustice 

commented that DOE’s analysis 

undervalues the health benefits of the 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR, citing studies that connect 

children with asthma to homes with gas 

cooking products as well as homes with 

high concentrations of nitrogen dioxide 

(‘‘NO2’’). (Sierra Club and Earthjustice, 

No. 2282 at pp. 3–4) Sierra Club and 

Earthjustice commented that improving 

the energy efficiency of gas cooking tops 

would ensure that compliant models 

combust less gas to do the same amount 

of cooking. (Id.) Sierra Club and 

Earthjustice recommended that DOE 

pursue an accurate quantitative 

assessment of the economic value of the 

harms resulting from gas cooking top 

emissions, or, at minimum, 

acknowledge that its current dollar-perton estimates may significantly undervalue the health and welfare benefits 

associated with reducing these 

emissions. (Id.) 

The AGs of NY et al.114 commented 

that the standards proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR would provide 

potentially significant—but as-yet 

unquantified—public health benefits 

such as those associated with improved 

indoor air quality, as the operation of 

gas cooking products results in 

emissions of methane, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen 

dioxide, and other air pollutants in the 

home that may be associated with a 

variety of serious respiratory and 

cardiovascular conditions and other 

health risks, according to studies cited 

by DOE. (AGs of NY et al., No. 2286 at 

p. 3) The AGs of NY et al. commented 

that they share DOE’s concerns 

regarding gas cooking products’ 

potential negative health impacts and 

pointed to recent studies showing that 

children growing up in households with 

gas cooking products have a 42-percent 

increased risk of experiencing asthma 

symptoms, and nearly 13 percent of 

current childhood asthma cases 

nationwide can be attributed to gas 

cooking product usage. (Id.) 

The AGs of NY et al. support DOE’s 

efforts to quantify whether the proposed 

efficiency standards will reduce 

emissions indoors caused by leakage 

from gas cooking products, citing a 2022 

study by Stanford University 

researchers that found a significant 

quantity of emissions from gas ranges 

occurs due to leakage when they are not 

actively being used. (Id. at pp. 3–4) The 

AGs of NY et al. commented that 

improved air quality is especially 

important to low-income and minority 

communities, which often experience 

energy insecurity and 

disproportionately suffer from asthma 

and other negative health outcomes 

associated with indoor air pollution 

from gas cooking products. (Id.) The 

AGs of NY et al. stated that making 

cooking appliances more efficient and 

reducing cooking-related emissions that 

exacerbate or contribute to asthma will 

help reduce the economic and health 

burdens of historically underserved 

communities. (Id.) 

The AGs of NY et al. encouraged DOE 

to incorporate performance standards 

into a final rule that mandate design 

approaches, control strategies, or other 

measures to mitigate methane or other 

emissions from gas ranges due to 

incomplete combustion and leakage 

design improvements, should such 

approaches and strategies exist and if 

they are economically feasible. (Id. at p. 

4) The AGs of NY et al. further 

commented that two benefits of more 

efficient cooking appliances—lower 

utility bills and improved air quality— 

are especially important to low-income 

and minority communities, which often 

experience energy insecurity and 

disproportionately suffer from asthma 

and other negative health outcomes 

associated with indoor air pollution 

from gas cooking products. (Id. at pp. 4– 

5) The AGs of NY et al. commented that, 

for example, children living in Wards 7 

and 8 of the District of Columbia 

(neighborhoods afflicted with poor 

housing conditions, including 

inadequate ventilation) have higher 

asthma rates and higher asthma 

hospitalization rates than children 

living in the wealthier parts of DC. (Id.) 

The AGs of NY et al. also cited a recent 

New York Public Housing Authority 

study, which found that cooking with 

gas cooking products resulted in NO2

concentrations nearly double the levels 

in outdoor air that EPA considers 

unhealthy for sensitive groups. (Id.) The 

AGs of NY et al. commented that 

making cooking appliances more 

efficient and reducing cooking-related 

emissions that exacerbate or contribute 

to asthma will help reduce the 

economic and health burdens of 

historically underserved communities. 

(Id.) 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, WE ACT provided a study 

detailing the impact on indoor air 

quality from transitioning from gas to 

induction stoves in affordable housing 

in New York City. (WE ACT, No. 10114 

at p. 1) WE ACT commented that DOE 

should consider health impacts that the 

energy conservation standards can 

address. (Id.) WE ACT further 

commented that gas cooking products 

carry a significant health risk due to the 

combustion-related pollutants, like 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), benzene, 

methane, and carbon monoxide. (Id. at 

pp. 2–3) WE ACT further commented 

that combustion-related pollutants pose 

a disproportionate health risk to 

vulnerable populations. (Id.) 

WE ACT commented that methane 

used in gas cooking products is an even 

more potent greenhouse gas than carbon 

dioxide and notes that gas cooking 

products have been reported to leak 

methane even when not in use. (Id. at 

pp. 2–3) WE ACT note that methane 

leakage from gas cooking products when 

not in use poses a safety concern, as 

well as being disruptive to the climate. 

(Id.) 

AGA commented that DOE relied on 

a limited and biased selection of 

literature to make a presumption that 

gas cooking applications contribute to 

negative health impacts. AGA 

commented that DOE’s assertions that 

reducing in-home use of gas combustion 

may deliver health benefits are not 

quantified in the February 2023 SNOPR 

analysis and such assertions are outside 

the scope of this proceeding and not 

supported by the record. (AGA, No. 

2279 at pp. 47–50) AGA cited studies 

that DOE ignored showing no evidence 

of an association between the use of gas 

as a cooking fuel and either asthma 

symptoms or asthma diagnoses. (Id.) 

AGA commented that the Federal 

Interagency Committee on Indoor Air 

Quality, which includes two dozen 

Federal agencies led by EPA, has not 

identified natural gas cooking emissions 

as an important issue concerning 

asthma or respiratory illness. (Id.) AGA 

added that the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission and EPA do not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11494 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

115For further information, see the Assumptions 

to AEO2023 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed Aug. 3, 

2023). 

present gas ranges as a significant 

contributor to adverse air quality or 

health hazard in their technical or 

public information literature, guidance, 

or requirements. (Id.) AGA commented 

that indoor air quality is far less 

dependent on the heat source for the 

cooking, either natural gas or electricity, 

than on the types of food being cooked 

and the cooking conditions such as 

time, temperature, space configuration, 

and ventilation. AGA commented that if 

health impacts were in scope, DOE 

would need to conduct a full analysis of 

the cooking process with natural gas 

and evaluate the cooking process and 

emissions unrelated to the fuel used. 

(Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

question in the February 2023 SNOPR 

regarding indoor air pollutants released 

by gas cooking products is biased and 

focused only on the potential indoor air 

pollutants released by gas products. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 37–38) AHAM 

commented that pollutants are released 

by indoor cooking no matter the fuel, 

with the main concern related to PM2.5. 

(Id.) AHAM commented that PM2.5

results from cooking and is at the same 

or similar levels whether the cooking 

product is gas or electric. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that the standard from the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’), 62.2, 

Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air 

Quality in Low-Rise Residential 

Buildings, has for decades been used to 

establish the proper requirements for 

dealing with contaminants of concern 

and requires a minimum air flow and 

external venting (or equivalent 

continuous venting) regardless of the 

fuel. (Id.) 

NPGA commented that gas cooking 

products have not been proven to 

contribute substantially to indoor air 

quality or health hazards, and reputable 

sources such as the Center for Disease 

Control and the medical journal Lancet 

do not identify a correlation between 

the use of gas cooking products and 

asthma. (NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 10–11) 

NPGA commented that any health 

benefits to consumers would not be 

affected by enhanced efficiency 

standards but could be affected by 

improved ventilation through highefficiency range hoods, exhaust fans, or 

opened windows. NPGA commented 

that these solutions are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking and that DOE 

lacks scientific, peer-reviewed studies 

showing a link between the use of gas 

cooking products and hazardous indoor 

air pollutants. (Id.) 

Western Energy Alliance commented 

that DOE’s review of scientific literature 

regarding indoor air emissions is too 

narrow, and the few studies referenced 

are biased. (Western Energy Alliance, 

No. 2272 at pp. 9–11) Western Energy 

Alliance recommended DOE include a 

more complete analysis. (Id.) Western 

Energy Alliance commented that DOE 

has overlooked a well-established air 

study from the International Study of 

Asthma and Allergies in Childhood that 

negates the claims from Seals et al. 

2020. (Id. at p. 11) 

ONE Gas commented that DOE’s 

interest in the IAQ issues of consumer 

gas cooking is misplaced and should be 

omitted from rulemaking considerations 

as DOE is straying into health and safety 

issues beyond its rulemaking role as 

authorized in EPCA. (ONE Gas, No. 

2289 at pp. 9–10; ONE Gas, No. 10109 

at p. 4) ONE Gas commented that health 

or safety claims of covered products is 

the role of the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’), and DOE 

should focus on ‘‘technologically 

feasible and economically justified’’ 

minimum efficiency standards. (Id.) 

Michael D. submitted a California 

Restaurant Association/California 

Building Industry Association/Catalyst 

Environmental Solutions research study 

entitled ‘‘The Effects of Cooking on 

Indoor Air Quality: A Critical Review of 

the Literature with an Emphasis on the 

Use of Natural Gas Appliances’’ by 

Tormey and Huntley, which included 

five key findings: (1) the type of 

appliance—natural gas or electric—used 

to cook food indoors is not a significant 

determinant of residential indoor air; (2) 

IAQ is impacted far more by the act of 

cooking than the fuel used, and the most 

effective method to protect health is to 

provide proper ventilation; (3) many 

additional factors influence emissions 

during cooking, including the type of 

food, the oils used, cooking 

temperatures and time, and proper 

ventilation; (4) reports linking gas 

cooking to negative health outcomes 

often rely on analyses that do not make 

that connection; and (5) the 

International Study of Asthma and 

Allergies in Childhood, the largest 

worldwide epidemiologic project 

focused on links between gas stove use 

and asthma, found that for 512,707 

primary and secondary school children 

from 47 countries, there was ‘‘no 

evidence of an association between the 

use of gas as a cooking fuel and either 

asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.’’ 

(Michael D., No. 2490 at p. 1) 

DOE acknowledges the significant 

uncertainty in quantifying the impact of 

higher gas stove efficiency on indoor air 

quality and associated health outcomes. 

In particular, multiple commenters 

provided additional studies pointing to 

the role of ventilation in affecting 

indoor air quality. Given the high degree 

of uncertainty, DOE has not tried to 

quantify how higher gas stove efficiency 

standards might affect occupant health, 

apart from continuing to monetize the 

health impact of decreased NOX and 

SO2 emissions, which is applicable to 

both gas and electric products (due to 

emissions from power plants). See 

chapter 14 of this direct final rule TSD 

for details. 

FFC upstream emissions, which 

include emissions from fuel combustion 

during extraction, processing, and 

transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’ 

emissions (direct leakage to the 

atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 15 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. 

For power sector emissions, specific 

emissions intensity factors are 

calculated by sector and end use. Total 

emissions reductions are estimated 

using the energy savings calculated in 

the national impact analysis. 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the AEO, 

which incorporates the projected 

impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2023 

reflects, to the extent possible, laws and 

regulations adopted through midNovember 2022, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs the emissions 

control programs discussed in the 

following paragraphs, and the Inflation 

Reduction Act.115

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (‘‘DC’’). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et 

seq.) SO2 emissions from numerous 

States in the eastern half of the United 

States are also limited under the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 

FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR 

requires these States to reduce certain 

emissions, including annual SO2

emissions, and went into effect as of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11495 

116CSAPR requires States to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (‘‘PM2.5’’) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain States to 

address the ozone season (May-September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five States in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR 

Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 

(Oct. 26, 2016). 

117 In order to continue operating, coal power 

plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or 

dry sorbent injection systems installed. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 

118www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_09_

01.html (last accessed Aug. 3, 2023). 

January 1, 2015.116 AEO incorporates 

implementation of CSAPR, including 

the update to the CSAPR ozone season 

program emission budgets and target 

dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 

26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is 

flexible among EGUs and is enforced 

through the use of tradable emissions 

allowances. Under existing EPA 

regulations, for States subject to SO2

emissions limits under CSAPR, any 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand caused by the adoption of an 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

However, in 2016, SO2 emissions 

began to fall as a result of the Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards (‘‘MATS’’) for 

power plants.117 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 

2012). The direct final rule establishes 

power plant emission standards for 

mercury, acid gases, and non-mercury 

metallic toxic pollutants. Because of the 

emissions reductions under the MATS, 

it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand would be needed or 

used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by another regulated 

EGU. Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation will generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023. 

IER commented that DOE’s statement 

that SO2 emissions began to fall in 2016 

as a result of the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards for power plants is not 

supported by the data. IER commented 

that SO2 emissions were falling for 

decades prior to 2016 and have flattened 

since 2016. (IER, No. 2274 at p. 7) 

It is correct that SO2 emissions from 

the electric power sector were declining 

prior to 2016, but EIA statistics show 

that the decline accelerated beginning in 

2015.118

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

case, NOX emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. Depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, however, NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. That would 

mean that standards might reduce NOX

emissions in covered States. Despite this 

possibility, DOE has chosen to be 

conservative in its analysis and has 

maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Standards would be expected to reduce 

NOX emissions in the States not covered 

by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2023 data to 

derive NOX emissions factors for the 

group of States not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

direct final rule, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, DOE considered 

the estimated monetary benefits from 

the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, 

NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation analogous 

to the calculation of the NPV of 

consumer benefit, DOE considered the 

reduced emissions expected to result 

over the lifetime of products shipped in 

the projection period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

values used for monetizing the 

emissions benefits and presents the 

values considered in this direct final 

rule. 

To monetize the benefits of reducing 

GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in 

February 2021 by the IWG. 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC–CO2). 

These estimates represent the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

emissions of these pollutants in a given 

year, or the benefit of avoiding that 

increase. These estimates are intended 

to include (but are not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 

of conflict, environmental migration, 

and the value of ecosystem services. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive orders, and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

rulemaking in the absence of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the 

social costs of greenhouse gases, 

whether measured using the February 

2021 interim estimates presented by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by 

another means, did not affect the rule 

ultimately adopted by DOE. 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 

reductions using SC–GHG values that 

were based on the interim values 

presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 

Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates under Executive Order 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG 

(‘‘February 2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). The 

SC–GHGs is the monetary value of the 

net harm to society associated with a 

marginal increase in emissions in a 

given year, or the benefit of avoiding 

that increase. In principle, SC–GHGs 

includes the value of all climate change 

impacts, including (but not limited to) 

changes in net agricultural productivity, 

human health effects, property damage 

from increased flood risk and natural 

disasters, disruption of energy systems, 

risk of conflict, environmental 

migration, and the value of ecosystem 

services. The SC–GHGs therefore 

reflects the societal value of reducing 

emissions of the gas in question by one 

metric ton. The SC–GHGs is the 

theoretically appropriate value to use in 

conducting benefit-cost analyses of 

policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11496 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

119Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. 

Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 

2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298. 

120National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC. nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24651/ 

valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-ofthe-social-cost-of. 

emissions. As a member of the IWG 

involved in the development of the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE 

agrees that the interim SC–GHG 

estimates represent the most appropriate 

estimate of the SC–GHG for this rule, 

which was developed using the interim 

estimates. DOE continues to evaluate 

recent developments in the scientific 

literature, including EPA’s December 

2023 SC–GHG estimates. 

The SC–GHGs estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which 

included DOE and other executive 

branch agencies and offices, was 

established to ensure that agencies were 

using the best available science and to 

promote consistency in the social cost of 

carbon (‘‘SC–CO2’’) values used across 

agencies. The IWG published SC–CO2

estimates in 2010 that were developed 

from an ensemble of three widely cited 

integrated assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’) 

that estimate global climate damages 

using highly aggregated representations 

of climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016 the IWG published estimates of the 

social cost of methane (‘‘SC–CH4’’) and 

nitrous oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates were developed by Marten et 

al.119 and underwent a standard doubleblind peer review process prior to 

journal publication. In 2015, as part of 

the response to public comments 

received to a 2013 solicitation for 

comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process.120 Shortly 

thereafter, in March 2017, President 

Trump issued Executive Order 13783, 

which disbanded the IWG, withdrew 

the previous TSDs, and directed 

agencies to ensure SC–CO2 estimates 

used in regulatory analyses are 

consistent with the guidance contained 

in OMB’s Circular A–4, ‘‘including with 

respect to the consideration of domestic 

versus international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). 

Benefit-cost analyses following 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 13783 used 

SC–GHG estimates that attempted to 

focus on the U.S.-specific share of 

climate change damages as estimated by 

the models and were calculated using 

two discount rates recommended by 

Circular A–4, 3 percent and 7 percent. 

All other methodological decisions and 

model versions used in SC–GHG 

calculations remained the same as those 

used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, 

respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 

recommendations in the National 

Academies 2017 report. The IWG was 

tasked with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this rulemaking. The 

E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a 

fuller update of the SC–GHG estimates 

that takes into consideration the advice 

in the National Academies 2017 report 

and other recent scientific literature. 

The February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

provides a complete discussion of the 

IWG’s initial review conducted under 

E.O.13990. In particular, the IWG found 

that the SC–GHG estimates used under 

E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact 

of GHG emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of omitted effects from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad, supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, and tourism, and spillover 

pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve an 

efficient allocation of resources for 

emissions reduction on a global basis— 

and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens— 

is for all countries to base their policies 

on global estimates of damages. As a 

member of the IWG involved in the 

development of the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this 

assessment and, therefore, in this direct 

final rule DOE centers attention on a 

global measure of SC–GHG. This 

approach is the same as that taken in 

DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 

through 2016. A robust estimate of 

climate damages that accrue only to U.S. 

citizens and residents does not currently 

exist in the literature. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, 

existing estimates are both incomplete 

and an underestimate of total damages 

that accrue to the citizens and residents 

of the U.S. because they do not fully 

capture the regional interactions and 

spillovers discussed above, nor do they 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11497 

121 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010. 

United States Government www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf 

(last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical Update 

of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/ 

2013-28242/technical-support-document-technicalupdate-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatoryimpact (last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 

United States Government. Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under 

Executive Order 12866. August 2016 www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_

august_2016.pdf (last accessed Jan. 18, 2022); 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 

Addendum to Technical Support Document on 

Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application 

of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of 

Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. 

August 2016 www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016- 

12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_

2016.pdf (last accessed Jan. 18, 2022). 

122 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases. 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidencebased-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climatepollution/. 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature. As noted in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the 

IWG will continue to review 

developments in the literature, 

including more robust methodologies 

for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG 

value, and explore ways to better inform 

the public of the full range of carbon 

impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 

Circular A–4 guidance) to discount the 

future benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions inappropriately 

underestimates the impacts of climate 

change for the purposes of estimating 

the SC–GHG. Consistent with the 

findings of the National Academies and 

the economic literature, the IWG 

continued to conclude that the 

consumption rate of interest is the 

theoretically appropriate discount rate 

in an intergenerational context,121 and 

recommended that discount rate 

uncertainty and relevant aspects of 

intergenerational ethical considerations 

be accounted for in selecting future 

discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 

3-percent and 7-percent discount rates 

as ‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also 

reminds agencies that ‘‘different 

regulations may call for different 

emphases in the analysis, depending on 

the nature and complexity of the 

regulatory issues and the sensitivity of 

the benefit and cost estimates to the key 

assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular 

A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical 

considerations arise when comparing 

benefits and costs across generations,’’ 

and Circular A–4 acknowledges that 

analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount 

future costs and consumption benefits 

. . . at a lower rate than for 

intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015 

Response to Comments on the Social 

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG 

members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4 

is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of 

7 percent is not considered appropriate 

for intergenerational discounting. There 

is wide support for this view in the 

academic literature, and it is recognized 

in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE 

concludes that a 7-percent discount rate 

is not appropriate to apply to value the 

social cost of greenhouse gases in the 

analysis presented in this analysis. 

To calculate the present and 

annualized values of climate benefits, 

DOE uses the same discount rate as the 

rate used to discount the value of 

damages from future GHG emissions, for 

internal consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

with other cost and benefits estimates 

that may use different discount rates.’’ 

The National Academies reviewed 

several options, including ‘‘presenting 

all discount rate combinations of other 

costs and benefits with [SC–GHG] 

estimates.’’ 

As a member of the IWG involved in 

the development of the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the 

above assessment and will continue to 

follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. While the IWG 

works to assess how best to incorporate 

the latest, peer reviewed science to 

develop an updated set of SC–GHG 

estimates, it set the interim estimates to 

be the most recent estimates developed 

by the IWG prior to the group being 

disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 

on the same models and harmonized 

inputs and are calculated using a range 

of discount rates. As explained in the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

has recommended that agencies revert 

to the same set of four values drawn 

from the SC–GHG distributions based 

on three discount rates as were used in 

regulatory analyses between 2010 and 

2016 and were subject to public 

comment. For each discount rate, the 

IWG combined the distributions across 

models and socioeconomic emissions 

scenarios (applying equal weight to 

each) and then selected a set of four 

values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting 

from the model runs for each of three 

discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, 

selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3-percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that 

was developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and the science available at the time of 

that process. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 

lower.122 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11498 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

123 DOE used the prior version of Circular A–4 

(September 17, 2003) in accordance with the 

effective date of the November 9, 2023, version. 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages—lags 

behind the most recent research. For 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

integrated assessment models, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and 

technological change, the incomplete 

way in which inter-regional and 

intersectoral linkages are modeled, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and 

inadequate representation of the 

relationship between the discount rate 

and uncertainty in economic growth 

over long time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 SC–GHG 

TSD, the IWG has recommended that, 

taken together, the limitations suggest 

that the interim SC–GHG estimates used 

in this direct final rule likely 

underestimate the damages from GHG 

emissions. DOE concurs with this 

assessment. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding its approach for monetizing 

greenhouse gas emissions in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. The approach 

used for this direct final rule is largely 

the same approach DOE had used for 

the February 2023 SNOPR analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, the AGs of LA et al. 

recommended that DOE avoid using or 

referencing the IWG estimates in its 

analysis and that DOE clarify the role of 

the SC–GHG in its analysis. (AGs of LA 

et al., No. 2264 at pp. 2–7) The AGs of 

LA et al. commented that DOE’s use of 

the IWG numbers is in direct conflict 

with EPCA’s directions and that there is 

no way to determine if the effect of the 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR on GHG emissions has an 

economic impact. (Id. at pp. 8–9) 

AHAM stated its objection to DOE’s 

use of SC–GHG and other monetization 

of emissions reductions benefits in its 

analysis of the factors EPCA requires 

DOE to balance to determine the 

appropriate standard. (AHAM, No. 2885 

at pp. 52–53) AHAM commented it is 

inappropriate for DOE to rely on the 

highly subjective and ever-changing 

monetization estimates in justifying an 

energy conservation standard. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE has 

responded to these objections by 

indicating that environmental and 

public health benefits associated with 

the more efficient use of energy, 

including those connected to global 

climate change, are important to take 

into account when considering the need 

for national energy conservation, which 

is one of the factors EPCA requires DOE 

to evaluate in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified, and AHAM 

does not object to DOE considering the 

benefits. AHAM commented that DOE 

can consider ‘‘other factors’’ under 

EPCA, but that does not override the key 

criteria EPCA requires DOE to balance 

and DOE must consider EPCA’s factors 

together and achieve a balance of 

impacts and benefits—a balance DOE 

has failed to strike in this rule. (Id.) 

APGA stated concern with DOE’s use 

of the SC–GHG in its cost-benefit 

analysis because such a large percentage 

of the total benefits of the proposed 

rulemaking result from these values. 

(APGA, No. 2283 at pp. 6–7) APGA 

commented that DOE’s reliance on these 

SC–GHG values is flawed and brings 

into question whether the proposed ECS 

is actually economically justified. (Id.) 

ONE Gas commented that DOE should 

table inclusion of SC–GHG benefits 

until the legal validity of these benefits 

used in minimum efficiency standards 

is resolved, and that any analysis of SC– 

GHG benefits should reflect the full 

range of uncertainty associated with 

IWG cost estimates. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 

at p. 15) 

Strauch asserted that the social cost of 

carbon is difficult to quantify, an issue 

that is exacerbated by deviating climate 

models. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3) 

Strauch recommended that DOE avoid 

weak and controversial cost constructs. 

(Id.) 

In response to the foregoing 

comments, DOE reiterates its view that 

the environmental and public health 

benefits associated with more efficient 

use of energy, including those 

connected to global climate change, are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In addition, 

Executive Order 13563, which was reaffirmed on January 21, 2021, stated that 

each agency must, among other things: 

‘‘select, in choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, those approaches 

that maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity).’’ For these reasons, DOE 

considers the monetized value of 

emissions reductions in its evaluation of 

potential standard levels. While the 

benefits associated with reduction of 

GHG emissions inform DOE’s evaluation 

of potential standards, DOE would reach 

the same conclusion regarding the 

economic justification of standards 

presented in this direct final rule 

without considering the social cost of 

greenhouse gases. As described in detail 

in section V.C.1 of this document, at the 

adopted TSL for consumer conventional 

cooking products, the average LCC 

savings for all product classes is 

positive, a shipment-weighted 0 percent 

of consumers would experience a net 

cost, and the NPV of consumer benefits 

is positive using both a 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rate. 

The AGs of LA et al. disagreed with 

DOE’s policy choice to adopt the IWG’s 

discount rate of 3 percent and added 

that calculations based on a 7-percent 

discount rate are consistent with 

guidance provided by OMB Circular A– 

4. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 4– 

5) The AGs of LA et al. commented that 

the choice of a 3-percent discount rate 

is arbitrary and recommended that DOE 

align its chosen discount rates with 

those used for calculating the impact of 

the proposed standards on consumers 

and manufacturers. (Id.) Western Energy 

Alliance commented that the mixing 

and matching of discount rates with 

respect to climate change is 

inappropriate. (Western Energy 

Alliance, No. 2272 at pp. 7–8) Western 

Energy Alliance and Zycher 

recommended DOE use the 7-percent 

discount rate consistently for the 7- 

percent discount rate scenario. (Western 

Energy Alliance, No. 2272 at pp. 7–8; 

Zycher, No. 2266 at p. 9) 

The reasons for using a consumption 

discount rate rather than a rate based on 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under OMB Circular A–4 

guidance) were presented previously in 

this section.123 DOE reiterates that while 

OMB Circular A–4, as published in 

2003, recommends using 3-percent and 

7-percent discount rates as ‘‘default’’ 

values, Circular A–4 also reminds 

agencies that ‘‘different regulations may 

call for different emphases in the 

analysis, depending on the nature and 

complexity of the regulatory issues and 

the sensitivity of the benefit and cost 

estimates to the key assumptions.’’ On 

discounting, Circular A–4 recognizes 

that ‘‘special ethical considerations arise 

when comparing benefits and costs 

across generations,’’ and Circular A–4 

acknowledges that analyses may 

appropriately ‘‘discount future costs and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11499 

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

scghg. 

125Available at www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

CEQ-2021-0002-33767. 

126Although these individual commenters are 

associated with the Heritage Foundation, the 

comment states that the views expressed in it 

should not be construed as representing any official 

position of the Heritage Foundation. (Wilfong and 

Dayaratna, No. 2281 at p. 1) 

consumption benefits . . . at a lower 

rate than for intragenerational analysis.’’ 

The AGs of LA et al. disagreed with 

DOE’s policy choice to accept IWG’s 

measurement of global damages in lieu 

of domestic damages, and with DOE’s 

choice to adopt the IWG’s decision to 

run the IAMs through a 300-year time 

span. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 

3–4, 5–6) The AGs of LA et al. noted 

that outside of the GHG emissions 

context, DOE uses a 30-year horizon to 

analyze the costs and benefits of the 

proposed rule on consumers, which 

makes the analysis of costs and benefits 

incomparable to the analysis of SC– 

GHGs. (Id. at pp. 5–6) 

Regarding the use of global SC–GHG 

values, as previously discussed, many 

climate impacts that affect the welfare of 

U.S. citizens and residents are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. In addition, assessing the benefits 

of U.S. GHG mitigation activities 

requires consideration of how those 

actions may affect mitigation activities 

by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. 

Regarding the use of different time 

horizons for the SC–GHG values and the 

other costs and benefits of potential 

standards, DOE’s analysis considers the 

costs and benefits associated with 30 

years of shipments of a covered product. 

Because such products continue to 

operate beyond 30 years, DOE accounts 

for energy cost savings and reductions 

in emissions until all products shipped 

within the 30-year period are retired. In 

the case of CO2 emissions, which 

remain in the atmosphere and 

contribute to climate change for many 

decades, the benefits of reductions in 

emissions likewise occur over a lengthy 

period; to not include such benefits 

would be inappropriate. 

The Institute for Policy Integrity at 

New York University School of Law 

(‘‘Policy Integrity’’) commented that 

DOE should consider applying 

sensitivity analysis using EPA’s draft 

climate-damage estimates released in 

November 2022, as EPA’s work 

faithfully implements the roadmap laid 

out in 2017 by the National Academies 

of Sciences and applies recent advances 

in the science and economics on the 

costs of climate change. (Policy 

Integrity, No. 2280 at pp. 1, 3) 

DOE is aware that in December 2023, 

EPA issued a new set of SC–GHG 

estimates in connection with a final 

rulemaking under the Clean Air Act.124

DOE continues to evaluate recent 

developments in the scientific literature, 

including EPA’s December 2023 SC– 

GHG estimates. DOE notes that because 

EPA’s estimates are considerably higher 

than the IWG’s interim SC–GHG values 

applied for this direct final rule, DOE 

anticipates that an analysis that used the 

EPA’s estimates would result in 

significantly greater climate-related 

benefits. Even if that were the case, 

however, such results would not affect 

DOE’s decision in this direct final rule. 

As stated elsewhere in this document, 

DOE would reach the same conclusion 

regarding the economic justification of 

the standards presented in this direct 

final rule because the standards are 

economically justified even without 

considering the IWG’s interim SC–GHG 

values, which DOE agrees are 

conservative estimates. For the same 

reason, if DOE were to use EPA’s higher 

SC–GHG estimates, they would likewise 

not change DOE’s conclusion that the 

standards are economically justified 

because the standards are economically 

justified even without considering 

EPA’s SC–GHG estimates. 

The AGs of LA et al. asserted that the 

IWG’s analysis of the three IAMs used 

to determine SC–GHG damages is 

flawed because a number of factually 

based assumptions cause the SC–GHG 

to swing from positive to negative, 

making them too sensitive to be reliable. 

(AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 2–7) 

The AGs of LA et al. commented that 

several policy choices made by the IWG 

contribute to an overestimated SC–GHG 

calculation. (Id.) The AGs of LA et al. 

also commented that the IWG’s 

projections do not account for the 

emissions-reducing policies being 

instituted globally. (Id.) The AGs of LA 

et al. commented that the IWG estimates 

are both flawed and unlawful, 

considering the result of the district 

court’s decision in Louisiana v. Biden, 

585 F. Supp. 3d 840 (W.D. La. 2022), 

vacated, Louisiana ex rel Landry v. 

Biden, 64 F.4th 674 (5th Cir. 2023), in 

which a preliminary injunction barred 

DOE from adopting the IWG estimates 

based on EPCA’s direction to preclude 

the consideration of global effects. (Id. at 

pp. 7–8) The AGs of LA et al. 

commented that DOE cannot overlook 

this injunction by relying on the Fifth 

Circuit’s interlocutory order, and 

instead must justify why the Louisiana 

court was incorrect in its conclusion or 

why DOE may use the IWG estimates 

regardless. (Id.) 

APGA restated comments it submitted 

to OMB jointly with over 20 other trade 

associations 125 that the interim SC– 

GHG values developed by IWG in 

response to E.O. 13990 require 

additional modifications before use in 

Federal rulemakings or policy decisions. 

(APGA, No. 2283 at pp. 6–7) 

The CO2 Coalition asserted that the 

IWG SC–GHG estimates relied on peer 

review and consensus, not the scientific 

method, and the estimates relied on 

scientifically invalid models, extreme 

weather conclusions, and catastrophic 

global warming theory. (CO2 Coalition, 

No. 2275 at pp. 8–15) The CO2 Coalition 

incorporated by reference all arguments 

made against use of the social cost of 

carbon by the State of Louisiana in 

Louisiana v. Biden. (CO2 Coalition, No. 

2275 at pp. 15–19, 21) 

Rachael Wilfong and Kevin Dayaratna 

(‘‘Wilfong and Dayaratna’’) 126

commented that the climate benefits of 

the proposed rule are arbitrary and 

overstated. Wilfong and Dayaratna 

stated that testing with several models, 

subjecting their sensitivity to a variety 

of important and reasonable 

assumptions, found the models can offer 

a plethora of different estimates of the 

SC–GHG, ranging from extreme damages 

to overall benefits. Wilfong and 

Dayaratna commented that they used 

EPA’s climate change model and found 

that assuming the upper bound of the 

IPCC’s climate sensitivity estimates, 

DOE’s estimated reduction in CO2

would result in a global temperature 

mitigation of only 0.0004 °C by 2050 

and 0.0009 °C by 2100. (Wilfong and 

Dayaratna, No. 2281 at pp. 7–10) 

CEI et al. commented that IWG 2021 

uses improperly low discount rates, 

relies on climate models that have 

consistently overstated actual warming, 

and on baseline emission scenarios that 

implausibly assume an increasingly 

coal-centric global energy system 

through 2100 and beyond, while 

downplaying the capacity for adaptation 

to mitigate climate impacts. CEI et al. 

added that IWG 2021’s inclusion of 

claimed climate benefits nearly 300 

years into the future and the use of 

global rather than national benefits are 

also skewed toward inflating the end 

result. (CEI et al., No. 2287 at pp. 6–7) 

Zycher commented that the IWG 

estimates are flawed for a number of 

reasons, including the use of 

inconsistent and inappropriate discount 

rates. Zycher commented that DOE’s 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11500 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

127See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed 

Feb. 21, 2023). 

adoption of the IWG estimates is 

misguided because the IWG considers 

global emissions. (Zycher, No. 2266 at 

pp. 4–7) 

Policy Integrity commented that DOE 

appropriately applies the social cost 

estimates developed by the IWG to its 

analysis of climate benefits. Policy 

Integrity commented that these values 

are widely agreed to underestimate the 

full social costs of greenhouse gas 

emissions, but for now they remain 

appropriate to use as conservative 

estimates. Policy Integrity incorporated 

by reference comments on DOE’s recent 

proposed standards for room air 

conditioners, which present numerous 

legal, economic, and policy 

justifications that further bolster DOE’s 

adoption of the Working Group’s 

climate-damage valuations. (Policy 

Integrity, No. 2280 at pp. 1–3) 

Western Energy Alliance commented 

that the SC–GHG estimates are 

inappropriate to include within this or 

any rule until the estimates have been 

subjected to the Administrative 

Procedure Act process complete with 

public notice and comment. (Western 

Energy Alliance, No. 2272 at pp. 5–9) 

In response to the foregoing 

comments, DOE notes that the IWG’s 

SC–GHG estimates were developed over 

many years, using a transparent process, 

peer-reviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

A number of criticisms raised in the 

comments were addressed by the IWG 

in its February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

previous parts of this section 

summarized the IWG’s conclusions on 

several key issues. DOE agrees that the 

interim SC–GHG values applied for this 

direct final rule are conservative 

estimates. In the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, the IWG stated that the 

models used to produce the interim 

estimates do not include all of the 

important physical, ecological, and 

economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change 

literature. For these same impacts, the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’ lags behind the most recent 

research. In the judgment of the IWG, 

these and other limitations suggest that 

the range of four interim SC–GHG 

estimates presented in the TSD likely 

underestimate societal damages from 

GHG emissions. The IWG is in the 

process of assessing how best to 

incorporate the latest peer-reviewed 

science and the recommendations of the 

National Academies to develop an 

updated set of SC–GHG estimates. DOE 

also notes that the Fifth Circuit vacated 

the district court’s decision on which 

the AGs of LA et al. rely. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC– 

N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this 

direct final rule are discussed in the 

following sections, and the results of 

DOE’s analyses estimating the benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of these 

GHGs are presented in section V.B.6 of 

this document. DOE considers the 

monetized value of emissions 

reductions in its evaluation of potential 

standard levels. While the benefits 

associated with reduction of GHG 

emissions inform DOE’s evaluation of 

potential standards, DOE would reach 

the same conclusion regarding the 

economic justification of standards 

presented in this direct final rule 

without considering the social cost of 

greenhouse gases. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SC–CO2 values used for this 

direct final rule were based on the 

values developed for the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, which are shown in 

Table IV.31 in 5-year increments from 

2020 to 2050. The set of annual values 

that DOE used, which was adapted from 

estimates published by EPA,127 is 

presented in appendix 14A of the direct 

final rule TSD. These estimates are 

based on methods, assumptions, and 

parameters identical to the estimates 

published by the IWG (which were 

based on EPA modeling), and include 

values for 2051 to 2070. DOE expects 

additional climate benefits to accrue for 

products still operating after 2070, but 

a lack of available SC–CO2 estimates for 

emissions years beyond 2070 prevents 

DOE from monetizing these potential 

benefits in this analysis. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. DOE adjusted the values 

to 2022$ using the implicit price 

deflator for gross domestic product 

(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. To calculate a present value of 

the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SC–CO2 values in each case. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this direct final rule were based on 

the values developed for the February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD. Table IV.32 shows 

the updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates from the latest interagency 

update in 5-year increments from 2020 

to 2050. The full set of annual values 

used is presented in Appendix 14A of 

the direct final rule TSD. To capture the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.038</GPH>

Table IV.31 Annual SC-CO2 Values from 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050 

I /2020$ per M t e rIC • T on CO 2 :) 

Discount Rate and Statistic 

Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

95th 

Average Average Average percentile 

2020 14 51 76 152 

2025 17 56 83 169 

2030 19 62 89 187 

2035 22 67 96 206 

2040 25 73 103 225 

2045 28 79 110 242 

2050 32 85 116 260 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11501 

128U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 

Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors, and 

Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at 

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-directly-emitted-pm25-pm25-precursorsand-ozone-precursors. 

129 ‘‘Area sources’’ represents all emission sources 

for which States do not have exact (point) locations 

in their emissions inventories. Because exact 

locations would tend to be associated with larger 

sources, ‘‘area sources’’ would be fairly 

representative of small dispersed sources like 

homes and businesses. 130 ‘‘Area sources’’ are a category in the 2018 

document from EPA, but are not used in the 2021 

document cited above. See www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2018-02/documents/ 

sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf. 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as 

recommended by the IWG. DOE derived 

values (based on EPA values) after 2050 

using the approach described above for 

the SC–CO2. 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ 

using the implicit price deflator for GDP 

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

To calculate a present value of the 

stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

cases using the specific discount rate 

that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

For the direct final rule, DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

and SO2 emissions reductions from 

electricity generation using benefit per 

ton estimates for that sector from the 

EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis 

Program.128 DOE used EPA’s values for 

PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related 

benefits associated with NOX for 2025, 

2030, 2035, and 2040, calculated with 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. DOE used linear interpolation 

to define values for the years not given 

in the 2025 to 2040 range; for years 

beyond 2040 the values are held 

constant (rather than extrapolated) to be 

conservative. DOE combined the EPA 

regional benefit-per-ton estimates with 

regional information on electricity 

consumption and emissions from 

AEO2023 to define weighted-average 

national values for NOX and SO2 (see 

appendix 14B of the direct final rule 

TSD). 

DOE also estimated the monetized 

value of NOX and SO2 emissions 

reductions from site use of natural gas 

in consumer conventional cooking 

products using benefit per ton estimates 

from the EPA’s Benefits Mapping and 

Analysis Program. Although none of the 

sectors covered by EPA refers 

specifically to residential and 

commercial buildings, the sector called 

‘‘area sources’’ would be a reasonable 

proxy for residential and commercial 

buildings.129 The EPA document 

provides high and low estimates for 

2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent 

discount rates.130 DOE used the same 

linear interpolation and extrapolation as 

it did with the values for electricity 

generation. 

DOE multiplied the site emissions 

reduction (in tons) in each year by the 

associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation projected to 

result for each considered TSL. The 

analysis is based on published output 

from the NEMS associated with 

AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO 

Reference case, as well as a number of 

side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy 

supply and demand. For the current 

analysis, impacts are quantified by 

comparing the levels of electricity sector 

generation, installed capacity, fuel 

consumption and emissions in the 

AEO2023 Reference case and various 

side cases. Details of the methodology 

are provided in the appendices to 

chapters 13 and 15 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The utility analysis also estimates the 

impact on gas utilities in terms of 

projected changes in natural gas 

deliveries to consumers for each TSL. 

AGA commented that the Process 

Rule requires DOE to conduct a utility 

impact analysis to ‘‘include estimated 

marginal impacts on electric and gas 

utility costs and revenues’’ in its 

standards rulemakings. (AGA, No. 2279 

at pp. 51–52) AGA commented that the 

February 2023 SNOPR states that DOE 

conducted some analysis related to 

electric utilities, and even less for 

natural gas utilities, concluding that 

‘‘the impact to natural gas utility sales 

is equivalent to the natural gas saved by 

the proposed standard.’’ (Id.) AGA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.039</GPH>

Table IV.32 Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values from 2021 Interagency Update, 

2020-2050 (2020$ per Metric Ton) 

SC-CH4 SC-N20 

Discount Rate and Statistic Discount Rate and Statistic 

Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Average Average Average 

95th 

Average Average Average 

95th 

percentile percentile 

2020 670 1500 2000 3900 5800 18000 27000 48000 

2025 800 1700 2200 4500 6800 21000 30000 54000 

2030 940 2000 2500 5200 7800 23000 33000 60000 

2035 1100 2200 2800 6000 9000 25000 36000 67000 

2040 1300 2500 3100 6700 10000 28000 39000 74000 

2045 1500 2800 3500 7500 12000 30000 42000 81000 

2050 1700 3100 3800 8200 13000 33000 45000 88000 
11502 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

131See U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (‘‘RIMS II’’). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/ 

scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last 

accessed July 1, 2021). 

132Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User’s Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 

commented that the analysis and 

findings were insufficient and DOE 

should adhere to the Process Rule and 

conduct a complete impact analysis that 

quantifies and evaluates the marginal 

impacts to gas utility costs and revenues 

of a reduction in gas deliveries due to 

the proposed rule. (Id.) AGA 

commented that DOE should also 

analyze the impact to retail natural gas 

ratepayers due to DOE’s 

acknowledgement that the proposed 

standards could drive many consumers 

from natural gas to electric for cooking, 

with a loss of demand for natural gas 

local distribution companies that could 

lead to higher rates on remaining 

consumers to cover fixed distribution 

costs. (Id.) AGA commented that if DOE 

chooses to deviate from the Process 

Rule, it must explain why deviation is 

necessary or appropriate and allow 

stakeholder comments on that 

explanation. (Id.) 

In the context of this direct final rule, 

DOE maintains that the marginal 

impacts on gas utility costs and 

revenues would be minimal, given that 

the estimated reduction in annual gas 

demand at the Recommended TSL is a 

very small fraction of total U.S. 

residential gas demand (see chapter 15 

of the direct final rule TSD). DOE 

maintains that utilities will not be 

impacted from fuel switching because 

consumers are unlikely to switch from 

gas to electric products as a result of the 

adopted standard (see section IV.G of 

this document for details). Lastly, 

analysis of the impact of standards on 

rates is very difficult, given the diversity 

of regulatory structures in the U.S. and 

the many factors that go into setting 

utility rates. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a standard. Employment 

impacts from new or amended energy 

conservation standards include both 

direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the products subject to 

standards, their suppliers, and related 

service firms. The MIA addresses those 

impacts. Indirect employment impacts 

are changes in national employment 

that occur due to the shift in 

expenditures and capital investment 

caused by the purchase and operation of 

more-efficient appliances. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the net jobs created or 

eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the products to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s BLS. BLS 

regularly publishes its estimates of the 

number of jobs per million dollars of 

economic activity in different sectors of 

the economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.131 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing consumer utility bills. 

Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this direct final rule 

using an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).132

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

the uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may overestimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. 

Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to 

generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2027/2028), where these 

uncertainties are reduced. For more 

details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

For any regulatory action that the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) within OMB determines is a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as 

amended by E.O. 14094, section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866 requires Federal 

agencies to provide an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

costs and benefits of potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives to the planned regulation, 

identified by the agencies or the public 

(including improving the current 

regulation and reasonably viable nonregulatory actions), and an explanation 

why the planned regulatory action is 

preferable to the identified potential 

alternatives. 58 FR 51735, 51741. OIRA 

has determined that this final regulatory 

action constitutes a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ within the scope of 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as discussed 

further in section VI.A of this document. 

DOE conducted a regulatory impact 

analysis (‘‘RIA’’) for this direct final 

rule. 

As part of the RIA, DOE identifies 

major alternatives to standards that 

represent feasible policy options to 

reduce the energy and water 

consumption of the covered product. 

DOE evaluates each alternative in terms 

of its ability to achieve significant 

energy and water savings at a reasonable 

cost, and compares the effectiveness of 

each alternative to the effectiveness of 

the finalized standard. DOE recognizes 

that voluntary or other non-regulatory 

efforts by manufacturers, utilities, and 

other interested parties can substantially 

affect energy and water efficiency or 

reduce energy and water consumption. 

DOE bases its assessment on the 

recorded impacts of any such initiatives 

to date, but also considers information 

presented by interested parties 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11503 

regarding the impacts current initiatives 

may have in the future. Further details 

regarding the RIA are provided in 

chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD. 

AN commented that DOE should 

postpone the compliance deadline for 

the proposed rule to account for the 

length and complexity of the 

policymaking process and ongoing 

global events (such as COVID 19). (AN, 

No. 374 at p. 1) AN commented that 

DOE should use a combination of 

economic incentives and direct 

regulations to promote energy 

conservation without manufacturers 

incurring losses. (Id. at p. 2) 

Fall suggested that a labelling 

program would be an alternative to the 

proposed rule that could allow 

consumers the ability to make informed 

decisions. (Fall, No. 376 at pp. 2–3) 

Gardener commented that the public 

would overall be better served by 

incentivizing manufacturers and 

consumers via tax credits to purchase 

products that meet the various levels of 

energy efficiency. (Gardener, No. 118 at 

p. 1) Gardener commented that the 

amount of the tax credits could also be 

tiered based on what level of efficiency 

is achieved. (Id.) Gardener commented 

that these types of incentives have 

worked very well in the home heating 

and home solar power markets and that 

this approach allows more consumer 

options and encourages the free market 

to respond more efficiently. (Id.) 

Strauch recommended that DOE 

address the cumulative regulatory 

burden on consumers in addition to 

manufacturers. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 

3) 

Consumers’ Research recommended 

that DOE should postpone establishing 

mandatory energy efficiency standards 

for gas cooking tops for at least another 

year following a successful one-year 

trial period of providing consumers 

with efficiencies measured using the 

test procedure in order to enhance 

consumer information and enable 

voluntary consumer selection of more 

efficient gas cooking products. 

(Consumers’ Research, No. 2267 at p. 4) 

NMHC and NAA commented that the 

proposed rulemaking accompanies a 

series of similar rulemakings DOE is 

proposing, all seeking to change the 

performance standards for essential 

residential appliances. (NMHC and 

NAA, No. 2265 at p. 3) NMHC and NAA 

recommended that DOE consider the 

collective impacts of these requirements 

and recognize that, in practice, the effect 

of individual pricing increases is 

magnified when housing providers must 

manage cost escalations across multiple 

products at once. (Id.) 

Whirlpool recommended that DOE 

consider non-regulatory approaches to 

increasing energy efficiency, including 

educating consumers on efficient 

cooking behaviors and practices. 

(Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 12) 

Whirlpool commented that cooking 

products differ from other major 

appliances in that the user has 

substantial influence on the product’s 

energy usage, and that the choices 

consumers make regarding their cooking 

techniques, food preferences, and 

choice in cookware can result in diverse 

energy usage results across consumers 

using the same model and food loads. 

(Id.) Whirlpool stated that according to 

its testing, the amount of energy savings 

DOE estimates would result from 

moving a gas cooking top from the 

baseline to EL 2 is roughly equivalent to 

the savings of a consumer switching 

from a stainless steel pot to an 

aluminum pot to boil the same amount 

of water, and that a consumer could 

therefore achieve roughly the same 

annual operating cost savings by 

switching their cookware to a more 

efficient material. (Id.) Whirlpool 

commented that it welcomes 

collaboration with DOE to achieve a 

larger savings opportunity through 

consumer education. (Id.) 

As discussed, E.O. 12866 directs DOE 

to assess potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives to the 

planned regulation, and to provide an 

explanation why the planned regulatory 

action is preferable to the identified 

potential alternatives. As part of the 

RIA, DOE analyzed five non-regulatory 

policy alternatives to the finalized 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products, including consumer 

rebates, consumer tax credits, 

manufacturer tax credits, voluntary 

energy efficiency targets, and bulk 

government purchases. Chapter 17 of 

the direct final rule TSD provides DOE’s 

analysis of the impacts of these 

alternatives to the planned regulation. 

Notwithstanding the requirements of 

E.O. 12866, as discussed, DOE is 

required by EPCA to establish or amend 

standards for a covered product that are 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency, 

which the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE has determined that 

setting energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products at the Recommended TSL 

achieves the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency which is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

P. Other Comments 

As discussed previously, DOE 

considered relevant comments, data, 

and information obtained during its 

own rulemaking process in determining 

whether the recommended standards 

from the Joint Agreement are in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). And 

while some of those comments were 

directed at specific aspects of DOE’s 

analysis of the Joint Agreement under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), others were more 

generally applicable to DOE’s energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

program as a whole. The ensuing 

discussion focuses on these general 

comments concerning energy 

conservation standards issued under 

EPCA. 

1. Commerce Clause 

The AGs of LA et al. asserted that the 

proposed standards, by not 

differentiating between interstate and 

intrastate markets, fail to reflect the 

proper scope of Federal regulation 

under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution. (AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 

at pp. 10–11) The AGs of LA et al. noted 

that EPCA prohibits any manufacturer 

or private labeler from distributing in 

commerce any new covered product 

which is not in conformity with an 

applicable energy conservation standard 

established pursuant to the statute 

[emphasis added]. 42 U.S.C. 6302(a)(5) 

The AGs of LA et al. further noted that 

the term ‘‘commerce’’ is defined by 

EPCA to mean trade, traffic commerce, 

or transportation (A) between a place in 

a State and any place outside thereof, or 

(B) which affects trade, traffic, 

commerce, or transportation described 

in subparagraph (A). (42 U.S.C. 

6291(17)). The AGs of LA et al. asserted 

that by not differentiating between 

interstate and intrastate commerce—like 

the statutory language of 42 U.S.C. 

6291(17)—the standards cover all 

commercial activity, whether inter- or 

intrastate, which is improper. In 

summarizing previous Supreme Court 

decisions, the AGs of LA et al. further 

asserted that precedent dictates that 

Congress can regulate intrastate activity 

under the Commerce Clause only when 

that activity substantially affects 

interstate commerce. Thus, according to 

the AGs of LA et al., for the proposed 

standards to apply to the intrastate 

market for the products subject to this 

rulemaking, DOE must show that the 

intrastate activity covered by 42 U.S.C. 

6291(17) and 6302(a)(5) substantially 

affects the interstate market for the 

products covered by this rulemaking. 

The AGs of LA et al. stated that there 

is no such analysis in the proposed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11504 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

133National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. 2021. Review of Methods Used by the 

U.S. Department of Energy in Setting Appliance 

and Equipment Standards. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. Available at doi.org/ 

10.17226/25992 (last accessed August 2, 2023). 

standards, and therefore no 

constitutional basis for application of 

the standards to intrastate markets for 

the products subject to this rulemaking. 

(AGs of LA et al., No. 2264 at pp. 10– 

11) The AGs of LA et al. further asserted 

that if such an analysis were to show 

that the intrastate market did not 

substantially affect the interstate market 

(and therefore was not properly the 

subject of Federal regulation), DOE must 

redo its cost-benefit analysis since the 

standards would apply to a more 

limited set of products—those traveling 

interstate. (Id.) The AGs of LA et al. 

further commented that even if DOE 

were to find that intrastate commerce in 

gas cooking products substantially 

affects interstate commerce, DOE should 

still exclude purely intrastate activities 

from any promulgated standard because 

the original understanding of the 

Commerce Clause does not give 

Congress the power to regulate activities 

that ‘‘substantially affect’’ interstate 

commerce. (Id.) In summary, the AGs of 

LA et al. asserted that DOE must 

exclude all intrastate activity from the 

proposed standards even if such activity 

has a substantial effect on interstate 

commerce in covered cooking products. 

(Id.) 

In response, DOE notes that it has 

clear authority under EPCA to regulate 

the energy use of a variety of consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment, including the 

subject consumer conventional cooking 

products. See 42 U.S.C. 6295. The scope 

of the new and amended standards 

adopted in this direct final rule properly 

includes all consumer conventional 

cooking products distributed in 

commerce for personal use or 

consumption because intrastate State 

activity involving a fungible commodity 

for which there is an established market, 

such as consumer conventional cooking 

products substantially affects interstate 

commerce. Furthermore, binding 

Supreme Court precedent contravenes 

the AGs of LA et al.’s arguments relating 

to the original understanding of the 

Commerce Clause. See e.g., Gonzales v. 

Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). As the Court 

noted in Raich, the Commerce Clause 

case law ‘‘firmly establishes Congress’ 

power to regulate purely local activities 

that are part of an economic ‘class of 

activities’ that have a substantial effect 

on interstate commerce.’’ Id. at 17. The 

Court concluded that to leave intrastate 

goods unregulated where there is an 

established interstate market for the 

commodity would have a substantial 

impact on the market and could 

undermine the very purpose of the 

regulatory scheme. See Id. at 18–19. 

Such would be the case here. DOE 

therefore affirms its view that Congress’ 

intent in EPCA was to provide it with 

authority to regulate all consumer 

conventional cooking products 

distributed in commerce. Indeed, based 

on its statutory authority in EPCA, DOE 

has a long-standing practice of issuing 

energy conservation standards with the 

same scope as the standard in this direct 

final rule. For example, DOE has 

maintained a similar scope of products 

in the April 2009 Final Rule that 

established the current standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products (74 FR 16040), and in the 

September 1998 Final Rule establishing 

the preceding set of standards for these 

products (63 FR 48038). As such, DOE 

disagrees with the AGs of LA et al.’s 

contention that the Commerce Clause 

limits DOE’s clear and long-standing 

authority under EPCA to adopt the 

standard, including its scope, presented 

in this direct final rule. A further 

discussion regarding federalism 

concerns can be found at section VI.E of 

this document. 

2. Fuel Neutrality Under EPCA 

Gas Analytics & Advocacy Services, 

LLC (‘‘GAAS’’) commented that 

Congress has made it clear that fuel 

neutrality be strictly adhered to with 

respect to energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products, despite electrification being a 

cornerstone of the Biden 

Administration’s energy and 

environmental policies. (GAAS, No. 

2271 at p. 3) 

AHAM commented that disparate 

treatment of gas and electric cooking 

tops based on fuel source is not 

appropriate and that energy 

conservation standards should be fuel 

neutral. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 4) 

In response, DOE first notes that the 

only requirement related to fuel 

neutrality in EPCA is that DOE establish 

separate product classes and standards 

based on the kind of energy, i.e., fuel, 

consumed. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A)) 

And while this requirement is not 

applicable to direct final rules issued 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE notes 

that the recommended standards in the 

Joint Agreement are divided into 

product classes based on fuel type. 

3. National Academy of Sciences Report 

The National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine (‘‘NAS’’) 

periodically appoint a committee to 

peer review the assumptions, models, 

and methodologies that DOE uses in 

setting energy conservation standards 

for covered products and equipment. 

The most recent such peer review was 

conducted in a series of meetings in 

2020, and NAS issued the report 133 in 

2021 detailing its findings and 

recommendations on how DOE can 

improve its analyses and align them 

with best practices for cost-benefit 

analysis. 

AGA commented that DOE should 

follow, or at least respond, to 

recommendations in the NAS report, 

specifically: appliance standards should 

be economically justified or based on 

significant failures of private markets or 

irrational consumer behavior 

(Recommendation 2–2); the Cost 

Analysis segment of the Engineering 

Analysis should be expanded to include 

ranges of costs, patterns of 

consumption, diversity factors, energy 

peak demand, and variance regarding 

environmental factors 

(Recommendation 3–5); DOE should put 

greater weight on ex post and marketbased evidence of markups to project a 

more realistic range of effects of a 

standard on prices (Recommendation 4– 

1); DOE should place greater emphasis 

on providing an argument for the 

plausibility and magnitude of any 

market failure related to the energy 

efficiency gap in its analyses 

(Recommendation 4–13); and DOE 

should give greater attention to a 

broader set of potential market failures 

on the supply side, including how 

standards might reduce the number of 

competing firms, and also how 

standards might impact price 

discrimination, technological diffusion, 

and collusion (Recommendation 4–14). 

(AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 18–20) AGA 

commented that DOE has not addressed 

the NAS recommendations in the 

February 2023 SNOPR and should 

revise the proposed rule and allow 

stakeholders an opportunity to 

comment. (Id.) 

AHAM stated that it has continually 

commented that DOE should review the 

NAS report and provide notice and an 

opportunity to comment on whether 

and how DOE will incorporate the 

recommendations in that report in its 

analysis repeated its request of several 

years that DOE review the NAS report 

and provide notice and opportunity to 

comment on whether and how DOE will 

incorporate into its analysis the 

recommendations in that report. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 47–49) AHAM 

asserted commented that DOE cannot 

continue to perpetuate what AHAM 

asserted to be the errors in its analytical 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11505 

approach that have been pointed out by 

stakeholders and the NAS report. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE has not 

assessed the utility of consumer-valued 

features that would be redesigned and 

eliminated under the standards. 

(AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 24) AHAM 

commented that, per OMB Circular A– 

4, DOE should perform an analysis of 

the consumer utility of specific features 

and performance that recognizes the 

opportunity cost to choose a feature or 

performance attribute. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that NAS recommends that 

DOE should collect data on consumer 

choices in appliance markets and 

estimate a discrete choice model of 

consumer behavior to quantify the 

trade-offs that consumers face from 

changes in appliance performance. (Id.) 

AHAM further commented that per 

NAS, DOE should assess consumer 

utility of features prior to establishing 

any standard where such features are 

required by law to be preserved. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s only 

technology option for improving 

efficiency of gas cooking tops eliminates 

consumer-valued features and 

performance. (Id.) 

GAAS commented that DOE has not 

considered the NAS report’s 

recommendation regarding 

methodologies to simultaneously 

improve and simplify economics 

analyses via the use of consumer 

marginal energy rates. (GAAS, No. 

10107 at p. 4) 

As discussed, the rulemaking process 

for establishing new or amended 

standards for covered products and 

equipment are specified at appendix A 

to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430, and 

DOE periodically examines and revises 

these provisions in separate rulemaking 

proceedings. The recommendations in 

the NAS report, which pertain to the 

processes by which DOE analyzes 

energy conservation standards, will be 

considered by DOE in a separate 

rulemaking process. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products. It 

addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, 

the projected impacts of each of these 

levels if adopted as energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products, and the standards 

levels that DOE is adopting in this direct 

final rule. Additional details regarding 

DOE’s analyses are contained in the 

direct final rule TSD supporting this 

document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

potential new or amended standards for 

products and equipment by grouping 

individual efficiency levels for each 

class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE 

to identify and consider manufacturer 

cost interactions between the product 

classes, to the extent that there are such 

interactions, and price elasticity of 

consumer purchasing decisions that 

may change when different standard 

levels are set. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

defined the TSLs presented in Table V.1 

and Table V.2. 88 FR 6818, 6870. 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

recommend DOE create a TSL 2.5 that 

is identical to February 2023 SNOPR 

TSL 2 except that it incorporates EL 2 

(instead of EL 1) for electric smooth 

element cooking tops because EL 2 is 

highly cost-effective and would improve 

the efficiency of a larger portion of 

cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 2278 at p. 

4) The CA IOUs noted that 80 percent 

of these cooking tops already meet EL 1, 

while 30 percent meet EL 2 and above. 

(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that EL 

2 is based on the lowest measured AEC 

for radiant cooking tops in the test 

sample, with the same ETLP as EL 1, yet 

five of the 11 tested smooth electric 

resistant cooking tops have an AEC of 

189 kWh/year or below and could meet 

an IAEC of 189 kWh/year by making 

improvements in standby mode power 

use (which the CA IOUs noted was cited 

by DOE as the technology option for EL 

1). (Id.) Additionally, the CA IOUs 

commented that eight of the nine 

smooth-induction cooking tops have an 

AEC of 189 kWh/year or less and stated 

that most induction cooking tops should 

meet this efficiency level through 

energy use improvements in standby 

power mode. (Id.) The CA IOUs 

commented that adopting EL 2 for 

electric smooth element cooking tops 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.040</GPH> ER14FE24.041</GPH>

Table V.1 February 2023 SNOPR Trial Standard Levels for Cooking Tops 

Electric Open (Coil) Electric Smooth Element 

Trial Element Cooking Tops Cooking Tops Gas Cooking Tops 

Standard 

Level EL IAEC EL IAEC EL IAEC 

(kWhlvear) (kWhlvear) (kBtulvear) 

1 Baseline 199 1 207 1 1,440 

2 Baseline 199 1 207 2 1,204 

3 Baseline 199 3 179 2 1,204 

Table V.2 February 2023 SNOPR Trial Standard Levels for Conventional Ovens 

Trial Electric Ovens Gas Ovens 

Standard 

Level EL Design Option EL Design Option 

1 1 SMPS 1 SMPS 

2 1 SMPS 1 SMPS 

3 3 SMPS, Convection mode 2 SMPS and Convection 

capability, and Oven separator mode capability 

Note: All efficiency levels for gas ovens include the current prescriptive requirement prohibiting the use of a constantburning pilot light. 
11506 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

134Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this 

direct final rule are discussed in section IV.C.1 of 

this document. Results by efficiency level are 

presented in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD. 

will not require higher conversion costs 

for many electric smooth element 

cooking tops. (Id.) 

NPGA commented that the proposed 

TSL mapping that does not include 

significant efficiency improvements for 

electric smooth element cooking tops 

until TSL 3 is arbitrary and inconsistent 

across fuel types. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 

5) 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. When considering 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, the standards must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In this assessment, DOE 

considers seven statutory factors, which 

include consideration of the economic 

impacts on manufacturers and 

consumers, as well as energy savings 

and the need for national energy 

conservation. In this direct final rule, 

DOE has modified TSL 2 to analyze the 

impacts of a standard set at EL 2 for all 

product classes, including electric 

smooth element cooking tops, as 

suggested by the CA IOUs and NGPA. 

Section V.C of this document includes 

a summary of the benefits and burdens 

of TSLs considered for consumer 

conventional cooking products. 

ONE Gas commented that TSLs 

should be analyzed independently 

across design options and not among 

groupings of technology options. (ONE 

Gas, No. 2289 at p. 15; ONE Gas, No. 

10109 at p. 4) 

Although DOE considered new and 

amended standard levels for consumer 

conventional cooking products by 

grouping the efficiency levels for each 

product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates 

all analyzed efficiency levels in its 

analysis and provides a comparative 

analysis of each design option in section 

V.C.1 of this document. 

NPGA commented that the statement 

in the February 2023 SNOPR that ‘‘DOE 

may adopt energy efficiency levels that 

are higher or lower than the proposed 

standards’’ is misleading. (NPGA, No. 

2270 at p. 2) NPGA commented that 

DOE’s decision to incorporate max-tech 

standards for gas cooking tops means 

that the adopted energy efficiency levels 

cannot be higher than the proposed 

standards, pursuant to EPCA. (Id.) 

DOE’s statement in the February 2023 

SNOPR is intended to apply across all 

product classes and not necessarily to 

each individual product class. 

In the analysis conducted for this 

direct final rule, DOE analyzed the 

benefits and burdens of three TSLs for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. DOE developed TSLs that 

combine efficiency levels for each 

analyzed product class. TSL 3 

represents the maximum 

technologically feasible (max-tech) 

energy efficiency for all product classes. 

TSL 2 represents an intermediate TSL. 

TSL 1—which corresponds to the 

Recommended TSL in the Joint 

Agreement—corresponds to the 

minimum efficiency improvement in 

each product class corresponding to 

electronic controls for electric smooth 

element cooking tops, optimized 

burners for gas cooking tops, and SMPSs 

for ovens. DOE presents the results for 

the TSLs in this document, while the 

results for all efficiency levels that DOE 

analyzed are in the direct final rule 

TSD. While not all ELs were included 

among the defined TSLs, DOE 

considered all efficiency levels as part 

of its analysis.134

Table V.3 and Table V.4 present the 

TSLs and the corresponding efficiency 

levels and potential prescriptive 

standards that DOE has identified for 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, 

consistent with those analyzed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR. As discussed in 

section IV.A.2.a of this document, DOE 

did not evaluate electric open (coil) 

element cooking tops as part of the 

efficiency analysis for this direct final 

rule. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.042</GPH> ER14FE24.043</GPH>

Table V.3 Trial Standard Levels for Cooking Tops 

Electric Smooth Element Gas Cooking Tops 

Trial Standard Cookin2 Tops (All Classes) (All Classes) 

Level EL IAEC EL IAEC 

(kWh/year) (kBtu/year) 

1 1 207 1 1,770 

2 2 189 2 1,343 

3 3 179 2 1,343 

Table V.4 Trial Standard Levels for Conventional Ovens 

Trial Standard Electric Ovens Gas Ovens 

Level EL Desi2n Option EL Desi2n Option 

1 1 SMPS 1 SMPS 

2 2 SMPS and Convection mode 2 SMPS and Convection 

capability mode capability 

3 3 SMPS, Convection mode 2 SMPS and Convection 

capability, and Oven separator mode capability 

Note: All efficiency levels for gas ovens include the current prescriptive requirement prohibiting the use of a constant 

burning pilot light. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11507 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on consumer conventional cooking 

products consumers by looking at the 

effects that potential new and amended 

standards at each TSL would have on 

the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined 

the impacts of potential standards on 

selected consumer subgroups. These 

analyses are discussed in the following 

sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decrease. Inputs used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the 

direct final rule TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V.5 through Table V.16 show 

the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 

considered for each product class in the 

compliance year for that TSL. All TSLs 

except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) 

have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 1 

has a compliance year of 2028. In the 

first of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

baseline product. In the second table, 

the impacts are measured relative to the 

efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year 

(see section IV.F.8 of this document). 

Because some consumers purchase 

products with higher efficiency in the 

no-new-standards case, the average 

savings are less than the difference 

between the average LCC of the baseline 

product and the average LCC at each 

TSL. The savings refer only to 

consumers who are affected by a 

standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase a product with 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.044</GPH> ER14FE24.045</GPH>

Table V.5 Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Smooth Element Standalone 

Cooking Tops 

Average Costs 

Efficiency 2022$ Simple Average 

TSL* Level Installed First Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime 

Cost Operating Operating LCC years years 

Cost Cost 

-- Baseline $571 $20 $259 $830 -- 16.8 

1 1 $571 $15 $194 $765 0.6 16.8 

2 2 $595 $14 $180 $775 4.0 16.8 

3 3 $1,212 $16 $209 $1,422 170.5 16.8 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The 

PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V.6 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops 

Efficiency Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

TSL*,** Average LCC Savings . Percent of Consumers that Level 2022$ Experience Net Cost 

1 1 $62.80 0% 

2 2 $8.54 52% 

3 3 ($638.87) 100% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

** All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 
11508 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.046</GPH> ER14FE24.047</GPH> ER14FE24.048</GPH> ER14FE24.049</GPH>

Table V.7 Average LCC and PBP Results for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top 

Component of a Combined Cooking Product 

Average Costs 

Efficiency 2022$ Simple Average 

TSL* Level Installed First Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime 

Cost Operating Operating LCC years years 

Cost Cost 

-- Baseline $571 $20 $259 $830 -- 16.8 

1 I $571 $15 $194 $765 0.6 16.8 

2 2 $595 $14 $180 $775 4.0 16.8 

3 3 $1,212 $16 $209 $1,422 170.5 16.8 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The 

PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V.8 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component of a Combined Cooking Product 

Efficiency Life-Cvcle Cost Savin2:s 

TSL*,** Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that Level 2022$ Experience Net Cost 

1 1 $62.80 0% 

2 2 $8.54 52% 

3 3 ($638.87) 100% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

** All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

T a e bl V9A . verage LCC an d PBP R esu It s t or G as St an d a 1 one C 00 ki ng T ops 

Average Costs 

Efficiency 2022$ Simple Average 

TSL* First Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Installed 

Cost Operating Operating LCC years years 

Cost Cost 

-- Baseline $464 $16 $175 $639 -- 14.5 

1 1 $465 $15 $169 $634 6.6 14.5 

2,3 2 $492 $13 $145 $637 10.5 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The 

PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V.10 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas 

Standalone Cooking Tops 

Efficiency Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

TSL*,** Average LCC Savings . Percent of Consumers that Level 2022$ Experience Net Cost 

1 1 $3.09 1% 

2,3 2 ($1.03) 38% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

** All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11509 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.050</GPH> ER14FE24.051</GPH> ER14FE24.052</GPH> ER14FE24.053</GPH>

Table V.11 Average LCC and PBP Results for Gas Cooking Top Component of a 

C om b' me d C 00 ki n~ P d t ro uc 

Average Costs 

Efficiency 2022$ Simple Average 

TSL* First Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Installed 

Cost Operating Operating LCC years years 

Cost Cost 

-- Baseline $464 $16 $175 $639 -- 14.5 

1 I $465 $15 $169 $634 6.6 14.5 

2,3 2 $492 $13 $145 $637 10.5 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The 

PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V.12 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas 

Cookin2 Top Component of a Combined Cookin2 Product 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Efficiency TSL*,** Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that Level 2022$ Experience Net Cost 

1 1 $3.09 1% 

2,3 2 ($1.03) 38% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

** All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V . 13 A vera2e LCC and PBP Results for Electric Ovens 

Average Costs 

Efficienc 2022$ Simple Average 

TSL* 

y Level First Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime 

Installed 

Cost Operating Operating LCC years years 

Cost Cost 

-- Baseline $750 $27 $344 $1,094 -- 16.8 

1 1 $749 $25 $327 $1,075 2.1 16.8 

2 2 $806 $24 $316 $1,122 25.4 16.8 

3 3 $860 $21 $275 $1,135 20.8 16.8 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The 

PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V.14 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for 

Electric Ovens 

Efficiency Life-Cycle Cost Savin2:s 

TSL*,** Average LCC Savings * Percent of Consumers that Level 2022$ Experience Net Cost 

1 1 $16.23 0% 

2 2 ($39.55) 27% 

3 3 ($24.87) 81% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

** All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 
11510 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on low-income 

households and senior-only households. 

Table V.17 through Table V.22 compare 

the average LCC savings and PBP at 

each efficiency level for the consumer 

subgroups with similar metrics for the 

entire consumer sample for each 

product class of consumer cooking 

products. In most cases, the average LCC 

savings and PBP for senior-only 

households at the considered efficiency 

levels are not substantially different 

from the average for all households. 

Low-income households have higher 

LCC savings and lower payback periods 

relative to the results for all households. 

Consumers not impacted by the TSL are 

composed of the remaining consumers 

that neither experience a net benefit or 

a net cost. Chapter 11 of the direct final 

rule TSD presents the complete LCC and 

PBP results for the subgroups. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.054</GPH> ER14FE24.055</GPH>

Table V . 15 Avera~e LCC and PBP Results for Gas Ovens 

Average Costs 

Efficiency 2022$ Simple Average 

TSL* First Year's Lifetime Payback Lifetime Level Installed 

Cost Operating Operating LCC years years 

Cost Cost 

-- Baseline $892 $22 $244 $1,135 -- 14.5 

1 1 $889 $20 $226 $1,115 1.9 14.5 

2,3 2 $932 $19 $218 $1,150 18.0 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The 

PBP is measured relative to the baseline product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V.16 Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Gas 

Ovens 

Efficiency Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

TSL*,** Average LCC Savings . Percent of Consumers that Level 2022$ Experience Net Cost 

1 1 $15.17 0% 

2,3 2 ($24.16) 21% 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

** All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11511 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.056</GPH> ER14FE24.057</GPH>

Table V.17 Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All 

H h ouse o Id s; El ec t nc • S moo th St an d a I one C 00 ki n~ T ODS 

TSL* Low-Income Senior-Only All Households Households Households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$)** 

1 $62.53 $62.32 $62.80 

2 $21.37 $9.03 $8.54 

3 ($245.84) ($637.64) ($638.87) 

Payback Period (years) 

1 0.2 0.6 0.6 

2 1.3 3.9 4.0 

3 58.0 165.0 170.5 

Consumers with Net Benefit(%) 

1 20% 22% 22% 

2 57% 34% 33% 

3 47% 0% 0% 

Consumers with Net Cost(%) 

1 0% 0% 0% 

2 17% 51% 52% 

3 41% 100% 100% 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

** The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

Table V.18 Comparison ofLCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All 

Households; Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component of a Combined 

Cookin~ Product 

TSL* Low-Income Senior-Only All Households Households Households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$)** 

1 $62.53 $62.32 $62.80 

2 $21.37 $9.03 $8.54 

3 ($245.84) ($637.64) ($638.87) 

Payback Period (years) 

1 0.2 0.6 0.6 

2 1.3 3.9 4.0 

3 58.0 165.0 170.5 

Consumers with Net Benefit(%) 

1 20% 22% 22% 

2 57% 34% 33% 

3 47% 0% 0% 

Consumers with Net Cost(%) 

1 0% 0% 0% 

2 17% 51% 52% 

3 41% 100% 100% 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

** The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 
11512 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.058</GPH> ER14FE24.059</GPH>

Table V.19 Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All 

Households; Gas Standalone Cookin2 Tops 

TSL* Low-Income Senior-Only All Households Households Households 

Avera2:e LCC Savin2:s (2022$)** 

1 $4.31 $3.12 $3.09 

2 $8.57 ($0.36) ($1.03) 

3 $8.57 ($0.36) ($1.03) 

Payback Period (years) 

1 3.9 6.4 6.6 

2 6.1 10.2 10.5 

3 6.1 10.2 10.5 

Consumers with Net Benefit(%) 

1 2% 2% 2% 

2 35% 22% 21% 

3 35% 22% 21% 

Consumers with Net Cost(%) 

1 1% 1% 1% 

2 22% 37% 38% 

3 22% 37% 38% 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

** The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

Table V.20 Comparison ofLCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All 

Households; Gas Standalone Cooking Top Component of a Combined Cooking 

Product 

TSL* Low-Income Senior-Only All Households Households Households 

Average LCC Savings (2022$)** 

1 $4.31 $3.12 $3.09 

2 $8.57 ($0.36) ($1.03) 

3 $8.57 ($0.36) ($1.03) 

Payback Period (years) 

1 3.9 6.4 6.6 

2 6.1 10.2 10.5 

3 6.1 10.2 10.5 

Consumers with Net Benefit(%) 

1 2% 2% 2% 

2 35% 22% 21% 

3 35% 22% 21% 

Consumers with Net Cost(%) 

1 1% 1% 1% 

2 22% 37% 38% 

3 22% 37% 38% 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

** The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11513 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.E.2 of this 

document, EPCA establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard. In calculating a rebuttable 

presumption payback period for each of 

the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.060</GPH> ER14FE24.061</GPH>

Table V.21 Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All 

Households; Electric Ovens 

TSL Low-Income Senior-Only All Households Households Households 

Avera2:e LCC Savin2:s (2022$)** 

1 $17.72 $16.38 $16.23 

2 ($3.65) ($39.54) ($39.55) 

3 $25.85 ($26.16) ($24.87) 

Payback Period (years) 

1 0.7 2.1 2.1 

2 7.6 25.6 25.4 

3 5.8 21.2 20.8 

Consumers with Net Benefit(%) 

1 4% 5% 5% 

2 15% 1% 1% 

3 62% 18% 19% 

Consumers with Net Cost(%) 

1 0% 0% 0% 

2 8% 27% 27% 

3 24% 82% 81% 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

** The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 

Table V.22 Comparison ofLCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All 

Households; Gas Ovens 

TSL* Low-Income Senior-Only All Households Households Households 

Avera2:e LCC Savin2:s (2022$)** 

1 $15.45 $15.06 $15.17 

2 ($8.61) ($24.58) ($24.16) 

3 ($8.61) ($24.58) ($24.16) 

Payback Period (years) 

1 1.2 1.9 1.9 

2 10.5 18.0 18.0 

3 10.5 18.0 18.0 

Consumers with Net Benefit(%) 

1 4% 4% 4% 

2 9% 0% 1% 

3 9% 0% 1% 

Consumers with Net Cost(%) 

1 0% 0% 0% 

2 12% 21% 21% 

3 12% 21% 21% 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

** The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Negative values are denoted in parentheses. 
11514 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

values and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedures for consumer 

conventional cooking products. In 

contrast, the PBPs presented in section 

V.B.1.a of this document were 

calculated using distributions that 

reflect the range of energy use in the 

field. 

Table V.23 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs for consumer 

conventional cooking products. While 

DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for this rule are economically justified 

through a more detailed analysis of the 

economic impacts of those levels, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

that considers the full range of impacts 

to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment. The results of that 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level, thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic justification. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

next section describes the expected 

impacts on manufacturers at each 

considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct 

final rule TSD explains the analysis in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from the analyzed energy 

conservation standards. The following 

tables summarize the estimated 

financial impacts (represented by 

changes in INPV) of potential new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products, as well 

as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers of consumer 

conventional cooking products would 

incur at each TSL. To evaluate the range 

of cash flow impacts on the consumer 

conventional cooking product industry, 

DOE modeled two scenarios using 

different assumptions that correspond to 

the range of anticipated market 

responses to new and amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) the 

preservation of gross margin scenario 

and (2) the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, as previously described 

in section IV.J.2.d of this document. 

Each of the modeled scenarios results 

in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year (2024) 

through the end of the analysis period 

(30 years from the analyzed compliance 

year). The ‘‘change in INPV’’ results 

refer to the difference in industry value 

between the no-new-standards case and 

standards case at each TSL. To provide 

perspective on the short-run cash flow 

impact, DOE includes a comparison of 

free cash flow between the no-newstandards case and the standards case at 

each TSL in the year before new and 

amended standards would take effect. 

This figure provides an understanding 

of the magnitude of the required 

conversion costs relative to the cash 

flow generated by the industry in the 

no-new-standards case. 

DOE presents the range in INPV for 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers in Table V.24 and Table 

V.25. DOE presents the impacts to 

industry cash flows and the conversion 

costs in Table V.26. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.062</GPH> ER14FE24.063</GPH>

Table V.23 Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods 

Product Class Trial Standard Level* 

1 2 3 

years 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Top 0.5 2.6 59.3 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component 0.5 2.6 59.3 of a Combined Cooking Product 

Gas Standalone Cooking Top 3.7 6.0 6.0 

Gas Cooking Top Component of a Combined 3.7 6.0 6.0 Cooking Product 

Electric Ovens 1.6 14.4 9.1 

Gas Ovens 8.4 26.7 26.7 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

Table V.24 Industry Net Present Value for Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products - Preservation of Gross Mar2in Scenario 

Units No-New- Trial Standard Level* 

Standards Case 1 2 3 

INPV 2022$ millions 1,601 1,458 1,078 (25) 

Change in 2022$ millions - (143) (522) (1,626) 

INPV % - (9.0) (32.6) (101.6) 

*Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. Some numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11515 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates the change 

in INPV will range from ¥$1,903 

million to ¥$1,626 million, which 

represents a change in INPV of –118.9 

percent to –101.6 percent, respectively. 

At TSL 3, industry free cash flow 

decreases to ¥$763.7 million, which 

represents a decrease of approximately 

670.6 percent, compared to the no-newstandards case value of $133.8 million 

in 2026, the year before the compliance 

date. 

TSL 3 would set the energy 

conservation standard at EL 2 for the gas 

cooking top product classes (standalone 

and component of a combined cooking 

product) and for the gas oven product 

class and at EL 3 for the electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes 

(standalone and component of a 

combined cooking product) and for the 

electric oven product class. This 

represents max-tech for all product 

classes. DOE estimates that less than 1 

percent of electric smooth element 

cooking top shipments (standalone and 

component of a combined cooking 

product), 41 percent of gas cooking top 

shipments (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product), there 

are no electric standard oven 

(freestanding and built-in) shipments, 

there are no electric self-clean oven 

(freestanding) shipments, 2 percent of 

electric self-clean (built-in) shipments, 

62 percent of gas standard oven 

(freestanding) shipments, 38 percent of 

gas standard oven (built-in) shipments, 

93 percent of gas self-clean oven 

(freestanding) shipments, and 77 

percent of gas self-clean (built-in) 

shipments would already meet the 

efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 

2027. 

At TSL 3, DOE expects consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$1,593.5 million in product conversion 

costs. This includes testing costs and 

product redesign costs. At TSL 3, 

electric smooth element cooking top 

manufacturers would have to 

completely redesign most of their 

electric smooth element cooking top 

models to use induction technology. 

Electric oven manufacturers would have 

to completely redesign almost all their 

electric oven models to use oven 

separators. Additionally, consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $475.7 million in capital 

conversion costs to purchase new 

tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce the numerous redesigned 

cooking top and oven models at TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for consumer conventional 

cooking products significantly increases 

by 22.3 percent relative to the no-newstandards case shipment weighted 

average MPC in 2027. In the 

preservation of gross margin scenario, 

manufacturers can fully pass along this 

cost increase, which causes an increase 

in manufacturers’ free cash flow. 

However, the $2,069.2 million in 

conversion costs estimated at TSL 3, 

ultimately results in a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under 

the preservation of gross margin 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, manufacturers earn the 

same per-unit operating profit as would 

be earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments 

or higher MPCs. In this scenario, the 

22.3 percent increase in the shipment 

weighted average MPC results in a 

reduction in the margin after the 

compliance year. This reduction in the 

margin and the $2,069.2 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers causes a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.064</GPH> ER14FE24.065</GPH>

Table V.25 Industry Net Present Value for Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products - Preservation of Operating Profit Scenario 

Units No-New- Trial Standard Level* 

Standards Case 1 2 3 

INPV 2022$ millions 1,601 1,457 1,042 (302) 

Change in 2022$ millions - (144) (559) (1,903) 

INPV % - (9.0) (34.9) (118.9) 

*Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. Some numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

Table V.26 Cash Flow Analysis for Consumer Conventional Cooking Product 

Manufacturers 

Units No-New- Trial Standard Level* 

Standards Case 1*** 2 3 

Free Cash Flow 2022$ millions 133.8** 100.6 (94.0) (763.7) (2026) 

Change in Free 2022$ millions - (28.1) (227.9) (897.5) 

Cash Flow (2026) % - (21.8) (170.2) (670.6) 

Product 2022$ millions 19.9 334.0 1,593.5 Conversion Costs -

Capital 2022$ millions - 46.8 242.5 475.7 Conversion Costs 

Total Conversion 2022$ millions 66.7 576.5 2,069.2 Costs -

* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. Some numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

** The no-new-standards case free cash flow in 2027 is $128.7 million. 

*** Change in free cash flow for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) is compared to the no-new-standards case free cash 

flow in 2027. 
11516 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates the change 

in INPV will range from ¥$559 million 

to ¥$522 million, which represents a 

change in INPV of –34.9 percent to 

–32.6 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, 

industry free cash flow decreases to 

¥$94.0 million, which represents a 

decrease of approximately 170.2 

percent, compared to the no-newstandards case value of $133.8 million 

in 2026, the year before the compliance 

date. 

TSL 2 would set the energy 

conservation standard at EL 2 for all 

product classes. DOE estimates that 15 

percent of electric smooth element 

cooking top shipments (standalone and 

component of a combined cooking 

product), 41 percent of gas cooking top 

shipments (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product), 38 

percent of electric standard oven 

(freestanding) shipments, 30 percent of 

electric standard oven (built-in) 

shipments, 77 percent of electric selfclean oven (freestanding) shipments, 88 

percent of electric self-clean (built-in) 

shipments, 62 percent of gas standard 

oven (freestanding) shipments, 38 

percent of gas standard oven (built-in) 

shipments, 93 percent of gas self-clean 

oven (freestanding) shipments, and 77 

percent of gas self-clean (built-in) 

shipments would already meet the 

efficiency levels required at TSL 2 in 

2027. 

At TSL 2, DOE expects consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$334.0 million in product conversion 

costs. This includes testing costs and 

product redesign costs. Additionally, 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers would incur 

approximately $242.5 million in capital 

conversion costs to purchase new 

tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce all electric smooth element 

cooking top models and all oven models 

to use SMPSs and to purchase new 

molds for grates and burners for gas 

cooking top models that would not meet 

this energy conservation standard. 

At TSL 2, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for consumer conventional 

cooking products slightly increases by 

3.1 percent relative to the no-newstandards case shipment weighted 

average MPC in 2027. In the 

preservation of gross margin scenario, 

manufacturers can fully pass on this 

cost increase, which causes an increase 

in manufacturers’ free cash flow. 

However, the $576.5 million in 

conversion costs estimated at TSL 2, 

ultimately results in a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under 

the preservation of gross margin 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, the 3.1 percent increase 

in the shipment weighted average MPC 

results in a reduction in the margin after 

the compliance year. This reduction in 

the margin and the $576.5 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers causes a significantly 

negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under 

the preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 1 (i.e., the Recommended 

TSL), DOE estimates the change in INPV 

will range from ¥$144 million to 

¥$143 million, which represents a 

change of –9.0 percent. At TSL 1, 

industry free cash flow decreases to 

$100.6 million, which represents a 

decrease of approximately 21.8 percent, 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $128.7 million in 2027, the year 

before the compliance date. 

TSL 1 would set the energy 

conservation standard at EL 1 for all 

product classes. DOE estimates that 77 

percent of all electric smooth element 

cooking top shipments, 97 percent of all 

gas cooking top shipments, 95 percent 

of all electric oven shipments, and 96 

percent of all gas oven shipments would 

already meet or exceed the efficiency 

levels required at TSL 1 in 2028. 

At TSL 1, DOE expects consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers to incur approximately 

$19.9 million in product conversion 

costs to redesign all non-compliant 

cooking top models and oven models, as 

well as to test all (both compliant and 

newly redesigned) cooking top models 

to DOE’s cooking top test procedure. 

Additionally, consumer conventional 

cooking product manufacturers would 

incur approximately $46.8 million in 

capital conversion costs to purchase 

new tooling and equipment necessary to 

produce all electric smooth element 

cooking top models and all oven models 

to use SMPSs and to purchase new 

molds for grates and burners for gas 

cooking top models that would not meet 

this energy conservation standard. 

At TSL 1, the shipment weighted 

average MPC for consumer conventional 

cooking products slightly increases by 

0.1 percent relative to the no-newstandards case shipment weighted 

average MPC in 2028. In the 

preservation of gross margin scenario, 

manufacturers can fully pass on this 

slight cost increase, which causes an 

increase in manufacturers’ free cash 

flow. However, the $66.7 million in 

conversion costs estimated at TSL 1, 

ultimately results in a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 1 under the 

preservation of gross margin scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario, the 0.1 percent increase 

in the shipment weighted average MPC 

results in a reduction in the margin after 

the compliance year. This reduction in 

the margin and the $66.7 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers causes a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 1 under the 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario. 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment in the consumer 

conventional cooking products industry, 

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the 

domestic labor expenditures and 

number of direct employees in the nonew-standards case and in each of the 

standards cases (i.e., TSLs) during the 

analysis period. 

Production employees are those who 

are directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling products within a 

manufacturer’s facility. Workers 

performing services that are closely 

associated with production operations, 

such as materials handling tasks using 

forklifts, are included as production 

labor, as well as line supervisors. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate the 

number of production employees from 

labor expenditures. DOE used statistical 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 

Annual Survey of Manufacturers 

(‘‘ASM’’) and the results of the 

engineering analysis to calculate 

industry-wide labor expenditures. Labor 

expenditures related to product 

manufacturing depend on the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

The total labor expenditures in the 

GRIM were then converted to domestic 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the annual payment per production 

worker. 

Non-production employees account 

for those workers that are not directly 

engaged in the manufacturing of the 

covered products. This could include 

sales, human resources, engineering, 

and management. DOE estimated nonproduction employment levels by 

multiplying the number of consumer 

conventional cooking product workers 

by a scaling factor. The scaling factor is 

calculated by taking the ratio of the total 

number of employees, and the total 

production workers associated with the 

industry NAICS code 335220, which 

covers consumer conventional cooking 

product manufacturing. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V.27 represent the potential 

domestic production employment that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11517 

135 736 × 25% + 3,020 × 25% = 939 

could result following the analyzed new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. The upper bound of the 

results estimates the maximum change 

in the number of production workers 

that could occur after compliance with 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards when assuming that 

manufacturers continue to produce the 

same scope of covered products in the 

same production facilities. It also 

assumes that domestic production does 

not shift to lower labor-cost countries. 

Because there is a risk of manufacturers 

evaluating sourcing decisions in 

response to new and amended energy 

conservation standards, the lower 

bound of the employment results 

includes DOE’s estimate of the total 

number of U.S. production workers in 

the industry who could lose their jobs 

if some existing domestic production 

was moved outside of the United States. 

While the results present a range of 

domestic employment impacts 

following 2027 or 2028 (depending on 

the TSL being analyzed), the following 

sections also include qualitative 

discussions of the likelihood of negative 

employment impacts at the various 

TSLs. 

Using 2021 ASM data and interviews 

with manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 60 percent of the 

consumer conventional cooking 

products sold in the United States are 

manufactured domestically. With this 

assumption, DOE estimates that in the 

absence of new and amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

approximately 4,208 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing consumer conventional 

cooking products in 2027. Table V.27 

shows the range of the impacts of the 

analyzed new and amended energy 

conservation standards on U.S. 

production workers in the consumer 

conventional cooking product industry. 

At the upper end of the range, all 

examined TSLs show an increase in the 

number of domestic production workers 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. The upper end of the range 

represents a scenario where 

manufacturers increase production 

hiring due to the increase in the labor 

associated with adding the required 

components to make consumer 

conventional cooking products more 

efficient. However, as previously stated, 

this assumes that in addition to hiring 

more production employees, all existing 

domestic production would remain in 

the United States and not shift to lower 

labor-cost countries. 

At the lower end of the range, all 

examined TSLs show either no change 

in domestic production employment or 

a decrease in domestic production 

employment. The lower end of the 

domestic employment range assumes 

that gas cooking top domestic 

production employment does not 

change at any TSL. Manufacturing more 

efficient gas cooking tops by optimizing 

the burner and improving grates would 

not impact the location where 

production occurs for these product 

classes. Additionally, this lower range 

assumes that at TSL 1, the 

Recommended TSL, which sets all oven 

product classes and all electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes at 

EL 1, domestic production employment 

would not change. EL 1 would require 

SMPSs for all oven product classes and 

can be achieved using low-standby-loss 

electronic controls for the electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes. The majority of manufacturers 

already use SMPSs in their ovens and 

are able to meet the efficiency 

requirements at EL 1 for the electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes using purchased components. 

Adding these standby features to models 

currently not using these features would 

not change the location where 

production occurs for these product 

classes. 

At the lower end of the range for TSL 

2, DOE estimated that up to 25 percent 

of the domestic employment for the 

electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes could be relocated 

abroad at EL 2. Additionally, DOE 

estimated that up to 25 percent of 

domestic production employment for 

the oven product classes could be 

relocated abroad at TSL 2. DOE 

estimates that there would be 

approximately 736 domestic production 

employees involved in the production 

of electric smooth element cooking tops 

and 3,020 domestic production 

employees involved in the production 

covering all oven product classes in 

2027 in the no-new-standards case. 

Using these values to estimate the lower 

end of the range, DOE estimated that up 

to 939 domestic production employees 

could be eliminated at TSL 2 (due to 

standards being set at EL 2 for all 

electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes and for all oven product 

classes).135

At the lower end of the range for TSL 

3, DOE estimated that up to 50 percent 

of domestic production employment for 

the electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes could be relocated 

abroad at max-tech. Additionally, DOE 

estimated that up to 25 percent of 

domestic production employment for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.066</GPH>

Table V.27 Domestic Employment for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products in 

the Analyzed Compliance Year 

No-New- Trial Standard Level* 

Standards Case 1*** 2 3 

Domestic Production Workers in 4,208** 4,195 4,333 4,808 2027 

Domestic Non-Production 506** 504 521 578 Workers in 2027 

Total Direct Employment in 2027 4,714** 4,699 4,854 5,386 

Potential Changes in Total Direct - (13) - 0 (939)- 125 (1,123)- 600 Employment in 2027* 

*DOE presents a range of potential impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number. 

**In the no-new-standards case in 2028 there are 4,193 domestic production workers; there are 504 domestic nonproduction workers; and the total direct employment is 4,697 in 2028. 

***Change in employment for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) is compared to the no-new-standards case employment 

in 2028. 
11518 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

136 736 × 50% + 3,020 × 25% = 1,123 

the oven product classes could be 

relocated abroad at TSL 3. DOE 

estimates that there would be 

approximately 736 domestic production 

employees involved in the production 

of electric smooth element cooking tops 

and 3,020 domestic production 

employees involved in the production 

covering all oven product classes in 

2027 in the no-new-standards case. 

Using these values to estimate the lower 

end of the range, DOE estimated that up 

to 1,123 domestic production employees 

could be eliminated at TSL 3 (due to 

standards being set at max-tech for all 

electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes and for all oven product 

classes).136

DOE provides a range of potential 

impacts to domestic production 

employment as each manufacturer 

would make a business decision that 

best suits their individual product 

needs. However, manufacturers stated 

during interviews that due to the larger 

size of most consumer conventional 

cooking products, there are few units 

that are manufactured and shipped from 

far distances such as Asia or Europe. 

The vast majority of consumer 

conventional cooking products are 

currently made in North America. Some 

manufacturers stated that even 

significant changes to production lines 

would not cause them to shift their 

production abroad, as several 

manufacturers either only produce 

consumer conventional cooking 

products domestically or have made 

significant investments to continue to 

produce consumer conventional 

cooking products domestically. 

In response to the energy conservation 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR for gas cooking tops, Sub-Zero 

Group commented that any standard 

that would force its Wolf brand to 

remove consumer-desired features from 

their gas cooking tops would jeopardize 

its ability to maintain market share and 

negatively impact its employees 

represented by SMART Union 

International. (Sub-Zero Group, No. 767 

at p. 3; Sub-Zero Group, No. 2140 at p. 

6) 

As discussed in section IV.C.1.a of 

this document, DOE updated the 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops for 

this direct final rule analysis. With the 

updates to the efficiency levels for gas 

cooking tops that were made for this 

direct final rule analysis, DOE estimates 

that domestic production employment 

would not change significantly at TSL 1, 

but could be reduced by up to 939 

domestic employees at TSL 2 and by up 

to 1,123 domestic employees at TSL 3 

as displayed in the lower bound for 

Table V.27. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Manufacturers stated that any 

standard requiring induction heating 

technology for electric smooth element 

cooking tops would be very difficult to 

meet since there are less than 1 percent 

of shipments currently using this 

technology. Additionally, any standards 

requiring oven separators for the electric 

oven product class would be very 

difficult to meet since that would 

require completely redesigning the oven 

cavity of almost every electric oven 

model currently on the market. 

AGA commented that designers and 

manufacturers of gas cooking tops are 

likely to leave the market rather than 

spend the millions of dollars required to 

redesign their products to comply with 

the February 2023 SNOPR. (AGA, No. 

2279 at p. 22) 

NPGA stated that DOE’s proposed 

standard in the February 2023 SNOPR 

for gas cooking tops will pose a 

substantial difficulty for manufacturers 

and upheaval in the market. (NPGA, No. 

2270 at p. 9) NPGA stated that even if 

DOE is correct in asserting the proposed 

standard’s technical feasibility and 

economic justification, 96 percent of the 

gas cooking tops tested by DOE were not 

in compliance with the proposal 

intended to be in effect by 2027. (Id.) 

Additionally, NPGA stated that it is 

more likely that manufacturers will 

choose to leave the market rather than 

spend the millions of dollars it will take 

to redesign their products to be in 

compliance with the proposed 

standards. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented that it and 

other multi-brand companies 

differentiate their products on the basis 

of price, new features, improved 

customer experience, and improved 

energy efficiency. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 

at pp. 4–8) Whirlpool commented that 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR for gas cooking tops will 

limit the variety of cooking tops 

available on the market and functionally 

phase out product features that 

manufacturers use to differentiate 

between models and brands (e.g., grates 

and burners), and that without these 

features, Whirlpool and other 

manufacturers will lack the ability to 

meaningfully differentiate between 

products in their own product lines and 

those of their competitors. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented that the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

for gas cooking tops also threaten the 

ability of smaller companies to compete 

in the market, resulting in reduced 

consumer choice, less innovation, and 

industry consolidation as manufacturers 

lose the ability to add new features or 

improve consumer experience as readily 

within the confines of the standards. 

(Id.) Whirlpool added that DOE fails to 

account for the decreased competition 

that will likely result from this 

rulemaking. (Id.) Additionally, 

Whirlpool commented that DOE’s 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis fails to 

consider the likely diminution in 

market competition, product utility, and 

product performance of gas cooking 

products, as well as the likely wholesale 

removal of certain products and features 

from the market, resulting from the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR for gas cooking tops. (Id.) 

Whirlpool recommended that DOE 

account for whether the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

for gas cooking tops will reduce 

competition and increase consolidation. 

(Id.) ONE Gas stated that manufacturers 

would likely choose to leave the market 

rather than expend the millions of 

dollars to redesign their products in 

order to comply, unreasonably 

eliminating competition and resulting in 

enormous market upheaval. (ONE Gas, 

No. 2289 at pp. 3–4) 

Based on comments received in 

response to the February 2023 SNOPR, 

DOE further examined the potential 

impacts of the gas cooking top market in 

this direct final rule analysis and agrees 

that some gas cooking top 

manufacturers might not be willing to 

make the investments required to 

comply with the max-tech gas cooking 

top efficiency level that was proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR and the maxtech gas cooking top efficiency level 

analyzed in this direct final rule 

analysis. If energy conservation 

standards are set at max-tech for gas 

cooking tops, it could result in some gas 

cooking top manufacturers leaving the 

gas cooking top market (either by 

exclusively manufacturing electric 

cooking tops or exiting the cooking top 

market all together). However, DOE 

notes that 97 percent of gas cooking top 

shipments on the market today would 

meet EL 1 for the gas cooking tops 

product classes, which DOE is finalizing 

in this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE does 

not anticipate that adopting energy 

conservation standards at EL 1 for the 

gas cooking tops product classes would 

cause any manufacturer to exit the gas 

cooking top market and all 

manufacturers would be able to 

continue to differentiate their products 

based on features other than energy 

efficiency. 

As discussed in section IV.C.1 of this 

document, DOE updated the efficiency 

levels for gas cooking tops for this direct 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11519 

final rule. Based on the updated 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops, 

DOE estimates that approximately 41 

percent of gas cooking shipments would 

meet the efficiency requirements at 

max-tech. Based on DOE’s further 

analysis, including the updated 

efficiency levels for gas cooking tops for 

this direct final rule, DOE understands 

that there is a risk that some 

manufacturers might not be willing or 

able to make the investments required to 

comply with standards for gas cooking 

tops if standards are set at max-tech for 

gas cooking tops. DOE notes that 97 

percent of gas cooking top shipments on 

the market today would meet EL 1 for 

the gas cooking tops product classes, 

which DOE is finalizing in this 

rulemaking. 

Other than the max-tech ELs for the 

electric cooking top product classes and 

the gas cooking top product classes, all 

other ELs require making incremental 

improvements to existing designs and 

should not present any manufacturing 

capacity constraints given a compliance 

period of 3 or more years (depending on 

the TSL analyzed). 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash flow estimate 

may not be adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche product 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting cost structures substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE analyzed the impacts on small 

businesses in a separate analysis for the 

standards proposed in the NOPR 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register and in chapter 12 of the direct 

final rule TSD. DOE also identified the 

premium product manufacturer 

subgroup as a potential manufacturer 

subgroup that could be adversely 

impacted by energy conservation 

standards based on the results of the 

industry characterization. 

The premium product manufacturer 

subgroup consists of consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers that primarily sell gas 

cooking tops, gas ovens, and electric 

self-clean ovens marketed as premium 

or professional style, either as a 

standalone product or as a component 

of a combined cooking product. These 

products are typically significantly more 

expensive than the market average costs. 

For the cooking top product classes, 

some premium product manufacturers 

do manufacture electric smooth element 

cooking tops. Of the premium product 

manufacturers that manufacture electric 

smooth element cooking tops, all have 

products that use induction technology 

and would be able to meet the max-tech 

efficiency level for these product 

classes. 

Premium product manufacturers 

would likely face more difficulty 

meeting potential standards set for the 

gas cooking top product classes than 

other consumer conventional cooking 

product manufacturers. However, as 

previously stated in section IV.C.1.a of 

this document, all analyzed efficiency 

levels for the gas cooking top product 

classes are achievable with multiple HIR 

burners and continuous cast-iron grates. 

Therefore, while premium product 

manufacturers would likely have to 

redesign a higher portion of their gas 

cooking top models compared to other 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers, all efficiency levels for 

the gas cooking top product classes are 

achievable for premium product 

manufacturers. 

For the oven product classes, the vast 

majority of premium product electric 

and gas ovens already use SMPSs in 

their ovens and would not have 

difficulty meeting potential standard 

levels requiring SMPSs for any oven 

product classes. Additionally, premium 

product manufacturers typically have a 

higher percentage of gas oven models 

with convection mode capability 

compared to other consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers. However, like the rest of 

the market, there are very few, if any, 

premium product electric ovens 

equipped with an oven separator, and it 

would be difficult for premium product 

manufacturers to convert all their oven 

cavities into ovens equipped with oven 

separators. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the regulatory actions of 

other Federal agencies and States that 

affect the manufacturers of a covered 

product or equipment. While any one 

regulation may not impose a significant 

burden on manufacturers, the combined 

effects of several existing or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. Multiple regulations affecting 

the same manufacturer can strain profits 

and lead companies to abandon product 

lines or markets with lower expected 

future returns than competing products. 

For these reasons, DOE conducts an 

analysis of cumulative regulatory 

burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency. 

DOE evaluates product-specific 

regulations that will take effect 

approximately 3 years before or after the 

2028 compliance date of the new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products. This information is presented 

in Table V.28. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11520 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.067</GPH>

Table V.28 Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal 

Energy Conservation Standards Affecting Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Product Manufacturers 

Federal Energy Number of Approx. Industry Industry 

Number Manufacturers Conversion Conversion Conservation of Mfrs.* Affected from Standards Costs Costs / Product Standard this Rule** Year (millions) Revenue*** 

Portable Air 

Conditioners II 4 2025 $320.9 6.7% 85 FR 1378 (2015$) 

(Jan. IO, 2020) 

Room Air Conditioners $24.8 88 FR34298 8 4 2026 0.4% 

(May 26, 2023) (2021$) 

Microwave Ovens $46.1 88 FR39912 18 IO 2026 0.7% 

(Jun.20,2023) (2021$) 

Clothes Dryerst $149.7 87 FR 51734 15 IO 2027 (2020$) 1.8% 

(Aug. 23, 2022) 

Automatic Commercial 

Ice Makerst 23 4 2027 $15.9 0.6% 88 FR30508 (2022$) 

(Mav 11, 2023) 

Dishwasherst $125.6 88 FR32514 21 14 2027 (2021$) 2.1% 

(May 19, 2023) 

Electric Motors $468.5 88 FR36066 74 1 2027 2.6% 

(Jun. 1, 2023) (2021$) 

Residential Clothes 

Washerst 19 11 2027 $690.8 5.2% 88 FR 13520 (2021$) 

(Mar. 3, 2023) 

Ceiling Fanst $I07.2 88 FR40932 91 1 2028 (2022$) 1.9% 

(Jun. 22, 2023) 

Commercial 

Refrigeration $226.4 Equipmentt 89 7 2028 (2022$) 1.6% 

88 FR 70196 

(Oct. IO, 2023) 

Dehumidifierst $7.0 88 FR 765IO 20 4 2028 (2022$) 0.4% 

(Nov.6,2023) 

General Service 

Lampst IO0+ 1 2028 $407 4.5% 88 FR 1638 (2021$) 

(Jan. 11, 2023) 

Consumer Furnaces $162.0 88 FR87502 15 1 2029 1.8% 

(Dec. 18, 2023) (2022$) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11521 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

abide by Process Rule requirements and 

take action to fully review the 

cumulative impacts its rules will have 

on manufacturers and consumers, with 

this review including examination of 

the potential impact on the economy 

and inflation as a result of the 

unprecedented stringency and close 

compliance dates of DOE’s recently 

proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 2285 

at pp. 44–47) AHAM commented that 

DOE’s proposed levels for consumer 

clothes dryers, residential clothes 

washers, conventional cooking 

products, consumer refrigerator/ 

freezers, and its final rule for room air 

conditioners will require significant 

redesign of products—and in the case of 

gas cooking tops and top-loading clothes 

washers, the complete redesign of entire 

product lines. (Id.) AHAM repeated its 

request that DOE acknowledge this 

cumulative regulatory burden and take 

action, such as spacing out its final 

rules, allowing more lead-time by 

issuing final rules well before 

publishing them in the Federal Register, 

and reducing the stringency of 

standards such that fewer percentages of 

products would require complete redesign. (Id.) AHAM cited the example of 

CPSC’s investigation of IAQ and 

cooking, which will require potential 

redesign to meet any new NO2

requirements. (Id.) AHAM commented 

DOE’s proposed rule for cooking tops 

should be combined with CPSC’s IAQ 

effort into a single compliance date. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that Section 13(g) of 

the Process Rule provides specific 

actions DOE should take should there be 

cumulative impacts from other Federal 

regulatory action that DOE will 

recognize cumulative burden and ‘‘seek 

to mitigate the overlapping effects on 

manufacturers of new or revised DOE 

standards and other regulatory actions 

affecting the same products or 

equipment.’’ (Id.) AHAM noted that 

during the comment period for the 

February 2023 SNOPR, there were also 

rulemakings open for battery chargers, 

clothes washers, dishwashers, external 

power supplies, miscellaneous 

refrigeration products, refrigerator/ 

freezers, and small electric motors, all of 

which impact AHAM’s members. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that the Process 

Rule indicates if ‘‘a proposed standard 

would impose a significant impact on 

product or equipment manufacturers 

within approximately 3 years of the 

compliance date of another DOE 

standard that imposes significant 

impacts on the same manufacturers (or 

divisions thereof, as appropriate), the 

Department will, in addition to 

evaluating the impact on manufacturers 

of the proposed standard, assess the 

joint impacts of both standards on 

manufacturers.’’ (Id.) AHAM 

commented that the manufacturer 

impact analysis, as currently structured, 

does not adequately analyze the effects 

on an industry of multiple regulations 

within a short period and suggested 

adding the combined costs of complying 

with multiple regulations into the 

product conversion costs in GRIM as 

one potential solution DOE could take. 

(Id.) 

Regarding AHAM’s suggestion about 

spacing out the timing of final rules for 

home appliance rulemakings to reduce 

regulatory burden, DOE has statutory 

requirements under EPCA on the timing 

of rulemakings. For consumer 

conventional cooking products; 

consumer clothes dryers; dishwashers; 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and 

freezers; residential clothes washers; 

and room air conditioners, new and 

amended standards apply to covered 

products manufactured 3 years after the 

date on which any new or amended 

standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) For miscellaneous 

refrigeration products, amended 

standards apply 5 years after the date on 

which any new or amended standard is 

published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) 

However, the multi-product Joint 

Agreement recommends alternative 

compliance dates. As discussed in 

section II.B.4 of this document the Joint 

Agreement recommendations are in 

accordance with the statutory 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for 

the issuance of a direct final rule. 

Therefore, as compared to the EPCArequired lead time of 3-years, consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers have more lead time to 

meet new and amended standards at the 

Recommend TSL. 

As shown in Table V.28, the ongoing 

rulemakings with the largest overlap of 

consumer conventional cooking product 

manufacturers include dishwashers; 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers; residential clothes washers; 

clothes dryers; and miscellaneous 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.068</GPH>

Miscellaneous 

Refrigeration Productst 38 9 2029 $126.9 3.1% 88 FR 19382 (2021$) 

(Mar. 31, 2023) 

Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, 2029& $830.3 and Freezers 49 14 2030t (2022$) 1.3% 

88 FR3026 

(Jan. 17, 2024) 

* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule 

contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing consumer conventional cooking products that are also 

listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. 

Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. 

The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. 

The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are made and lasts from the publication year of 

the direct final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period typically ranges 

from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking. 

t Indicates a NOPR publication. Values may change on publication of a final rule. 

t For the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers energy conservation standards direct final rule, the 

compliance year (2029 and 2030) varies by product class. 
11522 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

137U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. Available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-foragencies/circulars (last accessed January 3, 2024). 

DOE used the prior version of Circular A–4 

(September 17, 2003) in accordance with the 

effective date of the November 9, 2023, version. 

138EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 

undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year 

period and that the 3-year compliance date may 

yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis 

period may not be appropriate given the variability 

refrigeration products, which are all part 

of the multi-product Joint Agreement 

submitted by interested parties. As 

detailed in the Joint Agreement, the 

signatories indicated that their 

recommendations should be considered 

a ‘‘complete package.’’ The signatories 

further stated that ‘‘each part of this 

agreement is contingent upon the other 

parts being implemented.’’ (Joint 

Agreement, No. 505 at p. 3) 

The multi-product Joint Agreement 

states the ‘‘jointly recommended 

compliance dates will achieve the 

overall energy and economic benefits of 

this agreement while allowing necessary 

lead-times for manufacturers to redesign 

products and retool manufacturing 

plants to meet the recommended 

standards across product categories.’’ 

(Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 2) The 

staggered compliance dates help 

mitigate manufacturers’ concerns about 

their ability to allocate sufficient 

resources to comply with multiple 

concurrent new and amended 

standards. See Table V.29 for a 

comparison of the estimated compliance 

dates based on EPCA-specified 

timelines and the compliance dates 

detailed in the Joint Agreement. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the national energy savings and the 

NPV of consumer benefits that would 

result from each of the TSLs considered 

as potential new or amended standards. 

a. National Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential new or 

amended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, DOE 

compared their energy consumption 

under the no-new-standards case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each TSL. The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

anticipated compliance with new and 

amended standards (2027–2056 for all 

TSLs other than TSL 1, the 

Recommended TSL; 2028–2057 for TSL 

1). Table V.30 presents DOE’s 

projections of the national energy 

savings for each TSL considered for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. The savings were calculated 

using the approach described in section 

IV.H of this document. 

OMB Circular A–4 137 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 

DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis 

using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of 

product shipments. The choice of a 9- 

year period is a proxy for the timeline 

in EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.138 The review 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.069</GPH> ER14FE24.070</GPH>

Table V.29 Expected Compliance Dates for Multi-Product Joint Agreement 

Rulemaking Estimated Compliance Year Compliance Year in the Joint 

based on EPCA Requirements Agreement 

Dishwashers 2027 2027* 

Consumer Conventional 2027 2028 Cooking Products 

Residential Clothes Washers 2027 2028 

Consumer Clothes Dryers 2027 2028 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration 2029 2029 Products 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator- 2027 2029 or 2030 depending on the 

Freezers, and Freezers product class 

* Estimated compliance year. The Joint Agreement states, "3 years after the publication of a final rule in the Federal 

Register." (Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 2) 

Table V.30 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Products; 30 Years of Shipments* 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 

quads 

Primary energy 0.21 0.62 1.46 

FFC energy 0.22 0.66 1.52 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11523 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that for some products, the compliance 

period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

139U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. Available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-foragencies/circulars (last accessed January 3, 2024). 

DOE used the prior version of Circular A–4 

(September 17, 2003) in accordance with the 

effective date of the November 9, 2023, version. 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to 

consumer conventional cooking 

products. Thus, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. The NES sensitivity 

analysis results based on a 9-year 

analytical period are presented in Table 

V.31. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of consumer conventional 

cooking products purchased during the 

period 2027–2035 for all TSLs except 

TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028– 

2035 for TSL 1. 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for consumer 

conventional cooking products. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,139 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Table V.32 

shows the consumer NPV results with 

impacts counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased during the period 

2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 

(the Recommended TSL); 2028–2057 for 

TSL 1. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V.33. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased during the period 

2027–2035 for all TSLs other than TSL 

1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028–2036 

for TSL 1. As mentioned previously, 

such results are presented for 

informational purposes only and are not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology or decision 

criteria. 

The previous results reflect the use of 

a default trend to estimate the change in 

price for consumer conventional 

cooking products over the analysis 

period (see section IV.H.3 of this 

document). DOE also conducted a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.071</GPH> ER14FE24.072</GPH> ER14FE24.073</GPH>

Table V.31 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Products; 9 Years of Shipments 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 

quads 

Primary energy 0.06 0.17 0.37 

FFC energy 0.06 0.18 0.39 

*2027-2035 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2036 for TSL 1 

Table V.32 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer 

C onven f 10na I C 00 ki n~ P d t ro UC s; 30 Y f ears o Sh. 1pmen t s * 

Trial Standard Level 

Discount Rate 1 2 3 

billion 2022$ 

3 percent 1.56 0.34 (43.89) 

7 percent 0.65 (0.40) (26.34) 

Note: Negative values denoted in parentheses. 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 

Table V.33 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Consumer 

Conventional Cooking Products· 9 Years of Shipments* ' Trial Standard Level 

Discount Rate 1 I 2 I 3 

billion 2022$ 

3 percent 0.55 I (0.04) I (19.11) 

7 percent 0.31 I (0.29) I (14.25) 

Note: Negative values denoted in parentheses. 

*2027-2035 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2036 for TSL 1 
11524 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

140 In Docket Item 12814, AHAM noted that it 

represents the following companies who 

manufacture residential cooking products are 

members of the AHAM Major Appliance Division: 

Arcelik A.S.; Beko US, Inc.; Brown Stove Works, 

Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby 

Products, Ltd.; De’Longhi America, Inc.; Electrolux 

Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber 

S.p.A.; FOTILE America, LLC; GE Appliances, a 

Haier Company; Gradient, Inc.; Hisense USA 

Corporation; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; Liebherr 

USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; 

Panasonic Corporation of America; Samsung 

Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics 

Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; 

Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation. 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the direct 

final rule TSD. In the high-price-decline 

case, the NPV of consumer benefits is 

higher than in the default case. In the 

low-price-decline case, the NPV of 

consumer benefits is lower than in the 

default case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE estimates that new and amended 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products will reduce energy 

expenditures for consumers of those 

products, with the resulting net savings 

being redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. These expected shifts 

in spending and economic activity 

could affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section IV.N of this 

document, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy to estimate 

indirect employment impacts of the 

TSLs that DOE considered. There are 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Therefore, DOE generated 

results for near-term timeframes ((2027– 

2032) for all TSLs other than TSL 1 (the 

Recommended TSL) and 2028 for TSL 

1), where these uncertainties are 

reduced. 

The results suggest that the adopted 

standards are likely to have a negligible 

impact on the net demand for labor in 

the economy. The net change in jobs is 

so small that it would be imperceptible 

in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 16 of the direct 

final rule TSD presents detailed results 

regarding anticipated indirect 

employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As stated, EPCA, as codified, contains 

the provision that the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

This provision is referred to by 

commenters as the ‘‘unavailability 

provision’’ or the ‘‘features provision.’’ 

The Joint Agreement signatories 140

stated that standards recommended in 

the Joint Agreement and adopted in this 

direct final rule are unlikely to result in 

the unavailability of covered products 

in the United States, in accordance with 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (Joint Agreement 

signatories, No. 12814 at p. 8) 

This section summarizes the 

comments received in response to the 

gas cooking top standard proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR and the 

updated efficiency levels for gas cooking 

tops in the August 2023 NODA, 

regarding their impact on the utility of 

gas cooking tops. 

a. General Comments 

ASAP et al. commented that the 

standards DOE proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR for gas cooking 

tops ensure that consumers will have 

access to the features generally available 

on the market today. (ASAP et al., No. 

2273 at pp. 2–3) ASAP et al. commented 

that HIR burners allow consumers to 

perform high-heat cooking and that 

continuous cast-iron grates are useful 

for heavy pans or to easily shift 

cookware between burners. (Id.) ASAP 

et al. commented that DOE’s decision to 

evaluate only models with at least one 

HIR burner and continuous cast-iron 

grates ensures that gas cooking top 

models with both features could comply 

with the proposed standard. (Id.) ASAP 

et al. commented that well-designed 

cooking tops can be both energy 

efficient and have multiple HIR burners. 

(Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE 

has provided sufficient evidence of the 

standard’s technological feasibility 

across a range of gas cooking top types 

and has ensured that gas cooking tops 

with varying utilities, including those 

with at least one HIR burner and 

continuous cast-iron grates, can be more 

efficient and will have continued 

market availability. (CA IOUs, No. 2278 

at pp. 2–3) The CA IOUs commented 

that the rulemaking record shows that 

the proposed standard will not reduce 

gas cooking top utility, will not 

negatively affect consumer choice, and 

will provide consumers with more 

efficient gas cooking tops. (Id.) 

b. Market Availability 

Spire and AGA requested that, in any 

final rule, DOE include a provision 

stating that interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of 

evidence that the proposed standard is 

likely to result in the unavailability of 

products that are substantially the same 

as those currently generally available in 

the United States. (Spire, No. 2710 at p. 

23; AGA, No. 2279 at p. 24) 

EPCA specifies that the Secretary may 

not prescribe an amended or new 

standard under this section if the 

Secretary finds (and publishes such 

finding) that interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States in any covered product type (or 

class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States at the time 

of the Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) DOE is publishing its 

analyses and findings in this direct final 

rule, including comments from 

interested parties, that demonstrate that 

the standards DOE is adopting fulfill 

this requirement. 

DOE notes that it estimates that the 

adopted standards will affect only 3 

percent of gas cooking top shipments, 

which can be redesigned through 

technology options that maintain the 

performance characteristics of currently 

available models, thus not resulting in 

the unavailability of products that are 

substantially the same as those currently 

available in the United States. 

Spire commented that there is no 

basis to believe any of the gas cooking 

tops that DOE tested could be modified 

to meet the standard proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR without 

sacrificing their HIR burners and the 

more heavy-duty continuous cast-iron 

grates that provide the greatest utility 

for consumers, unless the product has 

only one HIR burner and relatively light 

cast-iron grates. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 

11–14) Spire commented that based on 

its analysis of DOE’s test sample, the 

presence or absence of HIR burners is 

the only material determinant of 

whether products do or do not meet the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR for gas cooking tops. (Id.) 

Whirlpool added that only a single 

model tested by DOE that meets the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR offers the key features that 

consumers expect from their gas 

cooking tops and ranges (i.e., HIR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11525 

burners and continuous cast-iron 

grates), and that three additional models 

were screened out of DOE’s dataset 

because they did not offer these key 

features. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 9– 

10) Whirlpool commented that DOE has 

not identified a single model of gas 

cooking product with these common 

features that is currently on the market 

and can meet the standard proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR. (Id.) 

Sub-Zero commented that the Wolf 

SRT366 model, which is a very typical 

gas cooking top for the Wolf company, 

cannot meet the standard proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR. (Sub-Zero, 

No. 2140 at pp. 8–9) Sub-Zero noted 

that this product has one burner with a 

20,000 Btu/h input rate, two with 

18,000 Btu/h, two with 15,000 Btu/h, 

and one with 9,200 Btu/h. (Id.) 

IER asserted that DOE has not tested, 

nor has it disclosed to the public, a 

single gas cooking top that has HIR 

burners and continuous cast-iron grates, 

is available for purchase, and meets the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR. (IER, No. 2274 at pp. 4–5) 

IER commented that it disagrees with 

DOE’s assertion that nearly half of the 

total gas cooking top market currently 

achieves the proposed EL 2 in the 

February 2023 SNOPR and August 2023 

NODA, based on IER’s analysis of the 

expanded test sample. (IER, No. 10111 

at p. 5) IER asserted that only four out 

of 21 gas cooking tops in DOE’s test 

sample meet updated EL 2, that three 

out of 30 gas cooking tops in AHAM’s 

test sample meet updated EL 2, and that 

one out of 6 gas cooking tops in the 

PG&E test sample meet updated EL 2. 

(Id.) IER commented that DOE’s review 

of websites of major U.S. retailers 

without test data does not provide 

sufficient information for DOE’s 

determination of the percentage of 

cooking tops that would not be 

impacted by the proposed standard. (Id.) 

IER repeated its comments on the 

February 2023 SNOPR that there are no 

gas cooking tops in DOE’s test sample 

currently available on the market that 

meet the proposed standards. (Id.) 

ONE Gas commented that DOE’s test 

data are insufficient to justify the 

standards proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR and updated efficiency 

levels analyzed in the August 2023 

NODA. (ONE Gas, No. 10109 at pp. 2– 

3) ONE Gas commented that only one of 

the gas cooking top models tested meets 

the proposed standard and only two of 

the gas cooking top models tested meet 

the updated EL 2. (Id.) ONE Gas 

commented that DOE should use 

expanded testing prior to issuing an 

updated proposed standard for gas 

cooking tops. (Id.) 

DOE notes that 53 out of 55 nonentry-level gas cooking top units (i.e., 

with at least one HIR burner and 

continuous cast-iron grates) in its 

expanded test sample, including units 

with all HIR burners, as well as all eight 

entry-level gas cooking tops (i.e., 

cooking tops that do not have at least 

one HIR burner and continuous castiron grates) in its expanded test sample 

meet the adopted standard for gas 

cooking tops. Additionally, there are gas 

cooking tops in DOE’s expanded test 

sample that meet the adopted standard 

level with all features identified by 

manufacturers and individual 

commenters as important to consumers. 

AGA asserted that the standards 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

would violate the unavailability 

provision of EPCA through its drastic 

market elimination of 50 percent of the 

total gas cooking top market and 96 

percent of the market for ‘‘commercial’’ 

or ‘‘professional’’ gas cooking tops— 

particularly those with features most 

desirable to consumers, such as HIR 

burners and continuous cast-iron grates. 

(AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 21–24, 29–30) 

AGA commented that Congress ensured 

that: (1) energy conservation standards 

would not eliminate traits, qualities, or 

characteristics of products that make 

them work for consumers or are 

otherwise attractive to them; (2) energy 

conservation standards would be 

neutral as to which fuels that covered 

products use, protecting the standards 

from being used to favor one fuel source 

over another; (3) energy conservation 

standards would not eliminate a class of 

covered products or render them 

unworkable through infeasible or overly 

costly standards; and (4) DOE may not 

promulgate standards that are ‘‘likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States of any covered product type (or 

class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability) features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States.’’ (Id.) 

AGA asserted that the courts will pay 

particular scrutiny to DOE’s 

interpretation in this case because DOE 

asserts the authority to eliminate the 

availability of a class of natural gas 

appliances with features desired by 

millions of Americans, which is a major 

policy decision that the courts will 

presume rests with Congress. (Id.) AGA 

asserted that performance-related 

features warrant separate standards, and 

DOE must not set standards that would 

be ‘‘likely to result in the 

unavailability’’ of currently available 

‘‘performance characteristics,’’ which 

represents a desired policy outcome that 

fails to adhere to the structure Congress 

enacted into law. (Id.) 

AGA also asserted that the February 

2023 SNOPR assumptions that the 

standard presents no problem because it 

would allow cooking tops to offer at 

least one HIR burner and continuous 

cast-iron grates are false. (AGA, No. 

2279 at pp. 25–26) 

Spire commented that DOE’s data do 

not support the proposition that the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR is achievable for gas cooking 

tops with the features and performance 

characteristics that many consumers 

demand, and that as such, there is no 

basis for the economic and energy 

conservation benefits that DOE claims 

justify the proposed standard. (Spire, 

No. 2710 at pp. 4–5) Spire asserted that 

the standard proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR violates DOE’s 

requirement under EPCA to ensure that 

any proposed standards will not 

preclude consumers from purchasing 

the equivalent of products currently 

available to them on the market. (Id. at 

pp. 19–23) 

GAAS asserted that the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

comes with restrictions to consumer 

choice and that restricted features 

include, but are not limited to, HIR 

burners and heavy-duty grates. (GAAS, 

No. 2271 at p. 2) 

NAHB asserted that the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

could eliminate or severely limit several 

product features in gas cooking tops that 

are widely available currently and 

highly valued by consumers, including 

HIR burners (particularly cooking tops 

with multiple HIR burners), simmer 

burners for low-temperature cooking, 

and heavy cast-iron grates that add 

safety and durability over the lifespan of 

the appliance. (NAHB, No. 2288 at p. 2) 

Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et 

al. asserted that the design changes DOE 

expects manufacturers to make—such as 

smaller burners, longer cooking times, 

and smaller grates that could be less 

stable—are not likely to be accepted by 

consumers. (Representatives McMorrisRodgers et al., No. 765 at p. 2) 

CEI et al. asserted that the proposed 

rule violates the ‘‘features provision’’ of 

EPCA by jeopardizing several features of 

gas cooking tops that lead many cooks 

to prefer gas over electric cooking tops. 

(CEI et al., No. 2287 at pp. 3–4) CEI et 

al. commented that the features 

provision requires that characteristics 

presently available in gas cooking tops 

be preserved in substantially the same 

form and DOE lacks the discretion to 

decide whether a particular feature is 

important enough to warrant protection. 

(Id.) CEI et al. commented that HIR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

burners (especially those with input 

rates greater than 20,000 Btu/h) are of 

particular concern, as this feature is 

critical for stir-frying, searing, or heating 

up a large pot of water in a short time, 

but CEI et al. asserted that the proposed 

rule would limit gas cooking tops to 

only one such burner (some currently 

available models have more than one) 

and require that the maximum heat for 

the one HIR burner be reduced to 

considerably less than those now 

available. (Id.) CEI et al. commented 

that the rule would also threaten 

smaller, low-heat burners ideal for 

cooking tasks like simmering. (Id.) CEI 

et al. commented that heavy and/or 

continuous (often cast-iron) grates 

needed to safely handle large pots and 

to shift them from one gas burner to 

another—a feature on several currently 

offered gas cooking top models—may 

also be in jeopardy. (Id.) 

Wilfong and Dayaratna commented 

that the standard proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR could eliminate 

many gas cooking tops from the market 

or at least significantly affect 

competition and degrade consumer 

choice, which is not permitted under 

EPCA. (Wilfong and Dayaratna, No. 

2281 at pp. 5–6) Wilfong and Dayaratna 

asserted that consumers value energy 

safety, convenience, and durability 

along with energy efficiency when 

choosing appliances, and if DOE 

regulates based on one or two 

characteristics and prioritizes energy 

efficiency over other factors, the 

government stifles the free market, 

hinders innovation, and discourages 

products that consumers want to buy. 

(Id.) 

Strauch commented that 

manufacturers offer a range of grate and 

burner design choices to consumers for 

aesthetic purposes, in addition to utility 

purposes. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 2) 

Zycher commented that DOE accounts 

for neither the reasons why consumers 

prefer a mix of cooking products nor the 

benefits that consumers see in various 

cooking products’ cooking quality or 

convenience. (Zycher, No. 2266 at pp. 

3–4) Zycher commented that the 

proposed rule would reduce or 

eliminate many products preferred by 

consumers, and that this is an essential 

consideration when developing a cost/ 

benefit analysis. (Id.) Zycher asserted 

that consumers would be forced to 

choose the product characteristics 

favored by DOE, which suggests that the 

benefits of consumer choices exceed the 

costs estimated by DOE. (Id.) 

AHAM asserted that finalizing 

standards at the proposed levels for gas 

products will force a ‘‘race to the 

middle’’ where all products are 

essentially the same and, contrary to 

EPCA’s requirements and the Process 

Rule, lack features and functionality 

currently available in the U.S. market 

(HIR burners and continuous cast-iron 

grates). (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 15–16) 

AHAM also asserted that DOE’s 

proposed levels will likely result in 

homogenized cooking top designs that 

eliminate more than one HIR burner and 

the consumer utility associated with 

multiple HIR burners, eliminate burners 

with input rates at or above 14,000 Btu/ 

h without adding costs that DOE has not 

accounted for in its analysis 

(lengthening boil times), eliminate LIR 

burners, and offer burner input rates 

ranging from 9,500–10,000 Btu/h in 

order to meet the stringent standard. (Id. 

at p. 43) AHAM commented that the 

products potentially capable of meeting 

the standard proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR are those that do not 

include the very features and utility that 

DOE deemed must be maintained. (Id. at 

pp. 15–16) Thus, asserted AHAM, the 

February 2023 NODA shows that DOE’s 

proposed standard for gas cooking tops 

do not meet EPCA’s requirements. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that, contrary to 

EPCA’s requirements, DOE’s proposed 

standard for gas cooking tops will 

eliminate gas products with 

performance characteristics, features, 

and sizes that are substantially the same 

as those generally available in the 

United States today. (Id. at pp. 16–17) 

AHAM commented that its consumer 

research shows that consumers of 

cooking products rated safety (88 

percent), performance (87 percent), and 

cost (85 percent) as extremely or very 

important purchase drivers more than 

energy efficiency (79 percent) and cost 

to use over time (76 percent). (Id.) 

AHAM commented this analysis 

demonstrates that, consistent with 

EPCA’s requirements, DOE must ensure 

that safety, performance, and product 

price are not negatively impacted by its 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that while DOE 

has acknowledged consumer-valued 

features for gas cooking tops, it has not 

produced an exhaustive list of those 

features. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 15– 

16) AHAM commented that ranking 

these features by monetary value could 

help DOE preserve these features under 

EPCA. (Id.) 

AHAM asserted that commenters have 

provided evidence that the proposed 

standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability of features generally 

available at the time of this rulemaking, 

including but not limited to safety, 

performance, and product price; 

cooking tops with more than one HIR 

burner; LIR burners; a spectrum of heat 

input rates; conventional ranges; 

continuous cast-iron grates; and 

specialty cooking zones. (Id. at pp. 19– 

21) AHAM commented that much of 

this information is publicly available 

from online product reviews. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that HIR burners, 

LIR burners, and continuous cast-iron 

grates are likely to be removed under 

the proposed standards. (Id.) 

Whirlpool asserted that the proposed 

rulemaking threatens to diminish the 

availability, utility, and performance of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, particularly gas cooking tops 

and gas ranges, which will negatively 

affect how consumers cook. (Whirlpool, 

No. 2284 at p. 6) Whirlpool asserted that 

the proposed and updated EL 2 for gas 

cooking tops do not preserve key 

features of products available on the 

market today, and that DOE is not 

permitted under EPCA to prescribe 

energy conservation standards for gas 

cooking tops as proposed. (Whirlpool, 

No. 10117 at p. 2) 

Whirlpool commented that the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR would effectively require 

manufacturers of gas cooking tops and 

gas ranges to replace large (input rates 

greater than 15,000 Btu/h) and small 

(input rates of 5,000–6,000 Btu/h) 

burners with mid-sized (input rates of 

9,500–10,000 Btu/h) burners that offer 

higher optimized tested efficiency under 

appendix I1. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 

7) Whirlpool asserted that cooking with 

mid-sized burners will disrupt the 

cooking process for many types of meals 

and consumers will likely lose the 

ability to use their cooking tops for lowtemperature cooking. (Id.) 

ONE Gas commented that with the 

updated efficiency levels in the August 

2023 NODA, at least 59 percent of 

current gas cooking top models would 

be eliminated from the market. (ONE 

Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) ONE Gas 

asserted that elimination of gas cooking 

top models will disproportionately 

impact certain manufacturers and will 

reduce product availability and 

consumer choice. (Id.) 

DOE notes that its definition of EL 1 

for gas cooking tops, as updated in this 

direct final rule, and consistent with the 

Recommended TSL, represents the most 

energy efficient AEC among units with 

multiple HIR burners and continuous 

cast-iron grates that would not preclude 

any combination of other features 

mentioned by manufacturers (e.g., 

different nominal unit widths, sealed 

burners, at least one LIR burner, 

multiple dual-stacked and/or multi-ring 

HIR burners, and at least one extra-high 

input rate burner), as demonstrated by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11527 

products from multiple manufacturers 

in the expanded test sample. As such, 

DOE notes that any utility associated 

with these features is preserved under 

the adopted standards. DOE also 

determines that the adopted standards 

would not result in homogenized 

cooking top designs, because the 

adopted standards do not preclude any 

combination of the features mentioned 

by manufacturers, and a wide range of 

both entry-level and non-entry-level gas 

cooking tops meeting the adopted 

standards from multiple manufacturers 

already exist on the market. 

AGA asserted that the proposed rule 

would eliminate features from gas 

cooking tops that permit home cooks 

and home-based businesses to make 

certain foods, with impacts on the 

ability to cook a family meal, a holiday 

dinner, or food that is part of a homebased business, such as catering. (AGA, 

No. 2279 at pp. 50–51) AGA also 

asserted that DOE’s proposal would 

limit cooks to one stir-fry dish or one 

large pot of boiling water, but not both, 

and that cooks would no longer be able 

to shift a heavy pot of hot water or a 

large pan without lifting it because a 

continuous cast-iron grate would no 

longer be an option. (Id.) AGA 

commented that DOE should conduct a 

full analysis of the impact of the 

proposed rule on the various 

communities in the United States whose 

cooking methods and food preferences 

would be negatively impacted, and also 

analyze the impact on home-based 

businesses. (Id.) 

APGA commented that despite DOE 

acknowledging the consumer utility of 

HIR burners and continuous cast-iron 

grates, DOE did nothing to protect these 

features, as required by EPCA. (APGA, 

No. 2283 at pp. 4–5) APGA commented 

that DOE proposed to set the standards 

for gas cooking products at max-tech, 

which does not allow for more than one 

HIR burner, if any at all, or the use of 

heavy cast-iron grates, and no 

‘‘professional-style cooking products’’ 

passed DOE’s testing. (Id.) APGA 

asserted that because DOE is in 

violation of EPCA’s unavailability 

provisions, DOE must reissue proposed 

standards that adequately protect these 

features in all situations, not just some, 

whether that be done with the creation 

of separate product classes or in some 

other manner. (Id.) 

Western Energy Alliance commented 

that home cooks benefit from access to 

the same features of gas cooking tops 

enjoyed by professional chefs, which 

include (1) the ability to control 

temperature precisely; (2) better 

distribution of heat for even cooking, 

which is especially important for 

complex recipes; (3) efficiency, as it 

takes about three times as much energy 

to produce and deliver the electricity to 

the cooking top compared to gas at the 

burner tip; (4) instant heat and higher 

temperatures, resulting in shorter cook 

times; and (5) the ability to cook during 

an electricity outage. (Western Energy 

Alliance, No. 2272 at pp. 2–3) Western 

Energy Alliance asserted that DOE’s 

proposed rule would risk the future 

availability of HIR burners on gas 

cooking tops (and therefore common 

cooking styles like stir-frying and 

searing). (Id.) 

Wilfong and Dayaratna commented 

that DOE proposed to alter features that 

the TSD for the February 2023 SNOPR 

acknowledges that manufacturers and 

consumers have indicated as enhancing 

performance and utility, such as HIR 

burners with large diameters; HIR 

burners with high levels of flame 

controllability; spacing between the gas 

flame, grate, and cookware; and heavy, 

cast-iron grates. (Wilfong and Dayaratna, 

No. 2281 at pp. 3–4) Wilfong and 

Dayaratna that EPCA statutorily requires 

DOE to consider any lessening of utility 

or performance, and they asserted that 

by requiring design alterations such as 

flame angle, distance from burner to 

cookware, and grate weight, DOE 

proposes a standard that runs in direct 

opposition to this requirement. (Id.) 

Whirlpool commented that the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR would effectively ban an entire 

class of high output gas cooking 

products that have many features and 

utilities that consumers consider to be 

important, including the ability to 

perform low-temperature cooking, as 

well as having the necessary burner 

input rates across a number of burners 

to perform large cooking events. 

(Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 6–7) 

Whirlpool asserted that the proposed 

standard may harm consumers who rely 

on gas stoves to cook certain cuisines, 

and that the proposed standard would 

effectively eliminate aspects of cooking 

tops that consumers prefer, such as 

18,000 Btu/h rapid burners and thick 

continuous cast-iron grates, both 

because of flame size efficiency and 

aesthetic appeal. (Id.) Whirlpool 

commented that this would be 

inconsistent with EPCA’s unavailability 

provision. (Id.) 

Sub-Zero asserted that to meet the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR for gas cooking tops, 

manufacturers would be forced to 

reduce the burner input rate and the 

mass of the grates, both of which would 

diametrically oppose the needs of SubZero’s niche market. (Sub-Zero, No. 

2140 at p. 4) Sub-Zero requested that 

DOE reanalyze the market for the 

entirety of gas cooking tops and most 

specifically, the ‘‘commercial’’- or 

‘‘professional’’-style market. (Id.) SubZero commented that while all of its 

Wolf-brand electric products (using both 

radiant and induction technology) meet 

the proposed standard for electric 

smooth element cooking tops, no Wolfbrand gas model is close to meeting the 

proposed standard for gas cooking tops, 

which Sub-Zero commented is 

inappropriate from a rulemaking 

process perspective and a threat to its 

niche market. (Id.) 

Sub-Zero shared several confidential 

data sets with DOE representing what it 

characterized as its niche consumer 

needs in high-performance surface 

cooking, including specifics on HIR 

burners, which have been reflected in 

its Wolf-brand products. (Sub-Zero, No. 

2140 at p. 6) 

Sub-Zero commented it could find no 

evidence that DOE took into 

consideration important attributes of 

high-performance gas cooking tops in its 

February 2023 SNOPR analysis, such as: 

mass of grates, diameter of gas burner, 

distance from burner to utensil surface, 

and open area for primary and 

secondary air for combustion and 

exhaust of combustion by-products. 

(Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 9) 

Sub-Zero asserted that cooking top 

performance includes much more than 

speed-to-boil time, and that the highperformance cooking equipment user 

expects controllability of the flame, 

specifically in the area of simmer/low 

heat for foods such as melting of 

chocolate and simmering of sauces. 

(Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at pp. 10–11) SubZero commented that dual-stacked 

burner systems can provide excellent 

simmer performance while also 

achieving fast speed-to-boil times, by 

adding two distinct burner port rings 

and combustion systems within one 

unique burner position for high burner 

input rate along with precise simmer 

performance from a single burner 

position. (Id.) Sub-Zero commented that 

this design affects spacing from the 

flame to the cooking vessel to enhance 

performance at low input rates and 

allow precise burner control, both of 

which are impacted greatly when 

balancing safety and efficiency 

standards. (Id.) 

Sub-Zero asserted that consumers 

who purchase high-performance 

cooking tops require special 

performance enhancements for which 

they are willing to spend up to ten times 

more than for a non-high performance 

cooking top. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 

11) Sub-Zero acknowledged that a 

precise definition of ‘‘highVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Feb 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER3.SGM 14FER3

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

performance’’ may be hard to develop, 

but stated DOE’s obligation under law to 

acknowledge performance-related 

features that provide utility to the 

consumer. (Id.) 

As discussed, the adopted standards 

will not preclude designs with multiple 

HIR burners, continuous cast-iron 

grates, and any combination of other 

features mentioned by manufacturers. 

As such, DOE preserved the utility, 

including the cooking processes and 

styles, of existing gas cooking tops. The 

results for units in DOE’s expanded test 

sample satisfying AHAM’s suggested 

definition of a high-performance gas 

cooking top demonstrate that such units 

can meet the adopted standard. 

c. High Input Rate Burners 

AGA commented that HIR burners are 

sought by consumers because of their 

versatility to boil very large amounts of 

water without long wait times or to 

allow cookware to reach ideal surface 

temperatures for cooking normal 

portions of food while maintaining that 

temperature despite the initial shock 

from adding room temperature 

ingredients into a pan. (AGA, No. 2279 

at p. 30) 

APGA commented that DOE should 

screen out products without both 

multiple HIR burners and cast-iron 

grates because such products would 

have adverse impacts on product utility 

or availability to consumers. (APGA, 

No. 2283 at p. 5) 

ONE Gas asserted that the proposed 

rule for gas cooking tops would have 

unrealistic and discriminatory effects on 

consumer utility. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at 

pp. 4–5; ONE Gas, No. 10109 at p. 4) 

ONE Gas asserted that the proposed 

total cooking top IAEC maximum would 

limit cooking performance for searing 

and stir-frying to just one HIR burner, 

and asserted that the burner would be 

limited in providing heat rates that 

might not meet consumer needs for 

these cooking functions. (Id.) ONE Gas 

also asserted that DOE’s presumption of 

consumer ‘‘needs’’ limited to one such 

burner is unjustified. (Id.) 

Spire asserted that multiple HIR 

burners are a typical feature of the 

highest-performing and most highly 

rated gas cooking tops and that no such 

products in DOE’s test sample can meet 

the standard proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 

19–23) Spire commented that multiple 

HIR burners are desired by many 

consumers for the ability to quickly 

reach a boil in multiple pots at the same 

time. (Id.) 

AHAM stated agreement with DOE 

that HIR burners must be retained as a 

key consumer feature. (AHAM, No. 2285 

at pp. 3–4) AHAM asserted, however, 

that DOE’s proposed stringent energy 

conversation standards would allow 

only a single HIR burner, even though 

DOE recognizes in the February 2023 

SNOPR the ‘‘unique consumer utility’’ 

of this feature that allows high-heat 

cooking activities such as searing and 

stir-frying. (Id. at pp. 17–19) AHAM 

commented that research supplied by 

members show consumers desire the 

ability to boil water faster using an HIR 

burner and to have another HIR burner 

available because they have more than 

one large pan in use, particularly for 

serving larger groups of people and 

special occasion meals. (Id.) However, 

commented AHAM, no cooking top in 

DOE’s or AHAM’s sample with more 

than one HIR burner meets the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 

(Id.) DOE’s own anticipated design 

pathways to reach EL 2 for gas cooking 

tops involves reducing the number of 

HIR burners. (Id.) AHAM commented 

that, with the possible exception of DOE 

Test Unit #2 with its single HIR burner, 

no product in AHAM’s or DOE’s test 

sample with even a single HIR burner 

meets the standard proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR—and asserted 

that DOE Test Unit #2 likely would not 

be certified to meet the proposed 

standard in the future. AHAM 

commented that DOE must ensure that 

a final standard does not remove this 

important performance feature. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

consider the utility associated with 

more than one HIR burner because 

consumers find utility in being able to 

mix and match various pan sizes and 

cooking methods all at the same time. 

(Id. at pp. 19–20) AHAM commented 

that in order to avoid negatively 

impacting consumer utility and 

removing products on the market like 

those that are available today—which is 

contrary to EPCA—DOE must ensure 

that its standards do not require 

limitations on the number of HIR 

burners. (Id.) AHAM asserted that 

boiling two pots of water on a unit with 

only one HIR burner would take 37 

percent longer than on a unit with two 

burners having input rates of 19,000 

Btu/h. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that research 

shows consumers typically use two or 

more burners to make dinner and four 

or more for special occasions and want 

the ability to cook with a spectrum of 

heat inputs. (Id. at pp. 22–23) 

In response to the August 2023 

NODA, AHAM asserted that the 

updated EL 2 for gas cooking tops 

cannot be achieved by models with all 

HIR burners, noting that none of the 

seven units with all HIR burners in the 

expanded data set meet the proposed or 

updated EL 2. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 

8–9) AHAM commented that it is 

unclear how DOE identified the updated 

EL 2 and what gas cooking top with all 

HIR burners can meet updated EL 2. 

(Id.) AHAM commented that if DOE is 

basing this claim on a theoretical unit 

that has the most efficient HIR burners 

from different units, the methodology 

fails to take into account system 

dynamics and interactions between 

various components. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that DOE should explain 

and provide data to show that the 

proposed standard or updated EL 2 can 

be met by a unit with all HIR burners. 

(Id.) AHAM asserted that applicable 

units in the expanded test sample that 

meet EL 2 only have one HIR burner. 

(Id.) 

AGA et al. commented that they 

disagree that the updated EL 2 is 

achievable with multiple HIR burners 

and continuous cast-iron grates. (AGA et 

al., No. 10112 at pp. 8–9) AGA et al. 

commented that DOE’s data shows that 

of the 55 tested gas cooking tops with 

HIR burners and continuous cast-iron 

grates, only one gas cooking top with 

multiple HIR burners was able to 

achieve EL 2 (DOE Test Unit #10). (Id.) 

AGA et al. commented that this unit met 

EL 2 by a margin of 1.25 percent, which 

they asserted is within the test 

procedure’s margin for error and would 

preclude any reasonable certification of 

compliance with a standard based on EL 

2. (Id.) AGA et al. commented that 

among the other 54 gas cooking tops 

tested, only eight gas cooking tops can 

achieve EL 2, and that none of those 

products have more than one HIR 

burner. (Id.) 

AGA et al. commented that DOE has 

not provided evidence that 

manufacturers will be able to redesign 

their products to achieve significant 

improvements in measured efficiency 

without compromising the features or 

performance of their products. (Id. at 

pp. 9–10) AGA et al. commented that 

the presence of HIR burners and 

continuous cast-iron grates appears to 

be the only material determinant of 

whether products could satisfy the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR, and that they find the same to 

be true of the updated EL 2. (Id.) AGA 

et al. commented that changes to flame 

angle and distance from burner ports to 

cooking surfaces are design options that 

have the potential to degrade product 

features or performance without 

providing real energy savings. (Id.) AGA 

et al. commented that DOE has not 

explained how anticipated efficiency 

improvements can be achieved through 

redesigned products. (Id.) AGA et al. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11529 

commented that DOE does not include 

a description of what constitutes EL 2 as 

presented in the August 2023 NODA. 

(Id.) 

After evaluation of comments and 

data received in response to the 

February 2023 SNOPR, DOE evaluated 

the utility associated with multiple HIR 

burners and updated its screening 

analysis and efficiency levels in order to 

define efficiency levels achievable by 

gas cooking tops with multiple HIR 

burners. The adopted standard for gas 

cooking tops preserves the utility 

associated with multiple HIR burners. 

d. Low Input Rate Burners 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

consider LIR burners in its screening 

criteria and ensure that its final 

standards do not eliminate LIR burners, 

which are ranked amongst the most 

important cooking top features for 

consumers. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 20– 

22) In this context, AHAM defined LIR 

burners as having an input rate of 6,500 

Btu/h or less, based on Consumer 

Reports, and noted that they are 

typically designed to gently heat small 

quantities of liquid and are used by 

consumers for melting chocolate, 

cooking sauces, gravies, simmering 

soups/stews, cooking scrambled eggs, 

etc. and also used to keep food warm. 

(Id.) AHAM commented that LIR 

burners are smaller in diameter, with 

30–40 percent lower minimum input 

rates than traditional (non-multi-ring) 

burners, and because the test procedure 

measures the efficiency of boiling a pot 

of water, these burners appear less 

efficient when tested using the 

appendix I1 test procedure and, 

therefore, do not meet DOE’s proposed 

level. (Id.) AHAM asserted that to 

comply with the standard proposed in 

the February 2023 SNOPR, 

manufacturers may not be able to offer 

LIR burners, and their removal will have 

negative performance impacts on 

consumers and consumer utility. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

definition of a LIR burner is inconsistent 

in the August 2023 NODA. (AHAM, No. 

10116 at pp. 7–8) AHAM commented 

that DOE should clarify the definition of 

a LIR burner used in its analysis and 

provide opportunity for comment. (Id.) 

AHAM further commented that DOE has 

not preserved LIR burners as a product 

feature. (Id.) AHAM asserted that what 

DOE calls non-optimized burners are 

actually LIR burners. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that according to its dataset, 

73 percent of all burners that meet the 

definition of non-optimized have input 

rates less than 6,500 Btu/hr. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that the proposed standard 

for gas cooking tops would require the 

removal of LIR burners in order to 

increase efficiency. (Id.) AHAM 

commented that DOE should not 

eliminate product features but instead 

exclude non-optimized burners from the 

test procedure. (Id.) AHAM asserted that 

optimizing a LIR burner could result in 

a loss of utility because, while an LIR 

burner can be optimized to boil water 

more efficiently by reducing grate 

weight, bringing the flame closer to the 

cookware, and pointing the flame more 

directly at the cookware, these design 

changes reduce utility of the LIR burner. 

(Id.) AHAM commented that multi-ring 

burners can preserve the utility of a LIR 

burner, but that multi-ring technology is 

significantly more expensive, and that 

DOE should consider the cost of 

replacing LIR burners with multi-ring 

burners for manufacturers. (Id.) 

DOE considers a LIR burner to have 

a burner input rate less than 6,500 Btu/ 

h. DOE notes that its adopted standard 

for gas cooking tops does not preclude 

the use of LIR burners, as demonstrated 

by units in its expanded test sample. As 

discussed in section IV.C.3.b of this 

document, DOE notes that it considers 

burners with ‘‘non-optimized’’ 

turndown capability to be burners for 

which the lowest available simmer 

setting is more energy consumptive than 

necessary to hold the test load in a 

constant simmer close to 90 °C, 

resulting in significantly higher energy 

consumption than for a burner with a 

simmer setting that holds the test load 

close to that temperature. 88 FR 50810, 

50813. DOE empirically defines a nonoptimized burner as having a specific 

energy use of more than 1.45 Btu per 

gram of water in the test load, as 

measured by appendix I1. Id. As such, 

DOE clarifies that its definition of a nonoptimized burner is separate from the 

definition of a LIR burner and that its 

test sample includes LIR burners that 

are ‘‘optimized,’’ as well as ‘‘nonoptimized’’ burners with input rates 

above 6,500 Btu/h. DOE additionally 

notes that the IAEC of a gas cooking top 

is calculated as the average of the 

performance of each of the individual 

burners on the cooking top. DOE notes 

that the adopted standard for gas 

cooking tops would not preclude a nonoptimized burner if the average 

performance of all burners on the 

cooking top achieves the standard, but 

also notes that optimized turndown 

capability is a design option available to 

manufacturers in order to improve the 

efficiency of a cooking top. DOE further 

determines that excluding nonoptimized burners from the test 

procedure is not warranted. However, as 

discussed in section IV.C.3.b of this 

document, DOE has previously stated 

that a burner that is not able to heat 

water to 90 °C would likely be excluded 

from testing because it would be a 

specialty cooking zone (e.g., a warming 

plate or zone). 87 FR 51492, 51505. 

e. Cooking Time 

Consumers’ Research asserted that the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR may require manufacturers to 

redesign gas cooking tops with reduced 

burner sizes or heat outputs leading to 

longer cooking times, which would pose 

time constraints on consumers’ cooking 

abilities and perhaps incentivize 

consumers to choose unhealthy prepackaged food options over homecooked meals. (Consumers’ Research, 

No. 2267 at pp. 2–3) 

AHAM asserted that part of the 

consumer utility of HIR burners is 

quicker times to boil and that the 

standard proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR would eliminate that 

performance feature and lengthen times 

to boil. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 18) 

AHAM further noted that its data show 

that time to boil is directly related to 

burner input rate, with higher burner 

input rates generally resulting in shorter 

times to boil. (Id.) 

DOE notes that its adopted standard 

for gas cooking tops does not preclude 

the use of extra-high input rate burners 

or multiple HIR burners on a cooking 

top. DOE therefore determines that 

cooking time is not impacted by its 

adopted standards. 

f. Continuous Cast-Iron Grates 

AHAM asserted that in order to 

achieve the ‘‘burner and grate 

optimization’’ required by the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, 

manufacturers are likely to turn to 

thinner, wire grates, meaning that 

consumers will lose the option of 

sturdier grates that allow pots and pans 

to be safely moved from one place to 

another without lifting the pot/pan—a 

commonly reported activity. (AHAM, 

No. 2285 at p. 24) AHAM commented 

that consumer research provided by its 

members indicates that large, heavy, or 

specialty pots must be able to be slid 

from burner to burner without getting 

caught or causing a spill that must be 

cleaned up or cause a burn, which is a 

purchase driver for consumers and 

translates to consumer satisfaction. (Id.) 

As discussed, DOE evaluated only 

efficiency levels in this direct final rule 

analysis that can be achieved by gas 

cooking tops with multiple HIR burners 

and continuous cast-iron grates. 

Therefore, the adopted standards do not 

require the use of wire grates. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

g. Conventional Ranges 

NAHB commented that gas ranges are 

crucial for affordable housing as they 

represent the more affordable end of the 

product spectrum and are often used in 

starter homes and dwellings with 

limited kitchen sizes. (NAHB, No. 2288 

at p. 2) NAHB asserted that many 

consumer-preferred ranges will likely be 

unable to comply with the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

despite being a popular consumer 

choice and recommended that DOE 

define separate product classes for gas 

cooking tops and gas ranges. (Id.) 

Senators Marshall et al. commented 

that only one cooking top in DOE’s test 

sample, and no freestanding ranges meet 

the standard for gas cooking tops 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR. 

(Senators Marshall et al., No. 2277 at p. 

1) Senators Marshall et al. stated that 

none of the products that manufacturers 

tested were able to meet the proposed 

standard and that the rule poses serious 

consumer concerns with no consumer 

benefits. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that ranges offer 

the consumer a cooking top and an oven 

in a single product, taking up less space 

than a separate cooking top and oven, 

and ranges are less expensive to install 

because they do not require 

customization in the kitchen. (AHAM, 

No. 2285 at p. 23) However, AHAM 

noted, no ranges in DOE’s or AHAM’s 

sample meet DOE’s proposed energy 

conservation standard for gas cooking 

tops. (Id.) AHAM commented that 

millions of ranges are sold each year 

and yet the standard proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR threatens to 

eliminate them from the market for gas 

products, as no gas ranges meet the 

proposed standard. (Id.) 

AHAM commented that no gas ranges 

in DOE’s or AHAM’s test sample meet 

the standard proposed in the February 

2023 SNOPR, asserting that products 

representing 91 percent of U.S. 

shipments in 2022 would not meet the 

proposed standard. (AHAM, No. 2285 at 

p. 27) 

DOE notes that electric and gas ranges 

can meet the adopted standards, as 

demonstrated by the units in its 

expanded test sample. 

AHAM commented DOE should 

understand the safety requirements for 

gas ranges that impact the ability of 

ranges to achieve higher levels of 

efficiency, which include: combustion 

requirements (also applicable to cooking 

tops) that require higher grates and 

make burners less efficient; component 

temperature thermal and emissions 

testing for gas and electric ranges that 

are run with both the cooking top and 

oven components on; surface 

temperatures for both electric and gas 

ranges that affect the proximity of 

elements/burners to touchpad and 

knobs, which must be designed to 

ensure touchable surfaces remain cool 

for the user; enclosure temperatures that 

impact grate design, input rates, and 

burner spacing to ensure fire hazards are 

avoided; and venting location and 

impact on secondary air for cooking top 

burners, because the oven is on during 

safety testing of freestanding ranges. 

(AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 26–27) 

The cooking top efficiency levels that 

DOE analyzed for this direct final rule 

were based on the measured 

performance of gas and electric cooking 

tops available on the market in the 

United States, and therefore which meet 

all applicable safety standards. The 

adopted standards can be achieved by 

both standalone cooking tops and the 

cooking top portion of combined 

cooking products, such as ranges, as 

demonstrated by units in DOE’s 

expanded test sample. 

h. Unit Width 

AHAM commented that the size of the 

unit plays an important role in the 

design of the cooking top due to its 

impact on the availability of secondary 

air. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 26) AHAM 

commented that it believes the only gas 

cooking top to meet the standard 

proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR 

is 36 inches wide, making it easier to 

pass this test, and that DOE must 

consider all widths in order to ensure it 

does not eliminate consumer utility. 

(Id.) 

Representatives McMorris-Rodgers et 

al. stated that DOE has not 

demonstrated that its proposed design 

changes are possible for products 

outside the niche market of 36-inchwide countertop-mounted cooking tops 

and noted that EPCA prohibits DOE 

from using standards to eliminate 

products with features that are 

substantially the same as those available 

on the market today. (Representatives 

McMorris-Rodgers et al., No. 765 at p. 

2, citing 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

BSH Home Appliances Corporation 

(‘‘BSH’’) commented that it supports the 

inclusion of additional consumervalued features in the August 2023 

NODA efficiency levels. (BSH, No. 

10110 at p. 2) BSH commented that 

while DOE finds that units with two to 

six HIR burners can achieve the updated 

EL 1 and that a gas cooking top with all 

HIR burners can achieve the updated EL 

2, the data set does not account for any 

range greater than 36 inches in width. 

(Id.) 

DOE notes that the adopted standards 

for gas and electric cooking tops do not 

preclude units of varying width and 

installation configuration from meeting 

the standard, as demonstrated by units 

in its expanded test sample. 

Specifically, since the IAEC metric is an 

average measurement across all cooking 

zones on a cooking top, the number of 

cooking zones (and by proxy, the unit 

width) has no bearing on a unit’s ability 

to meet the adopted standard levels. 

i. Conclusion 

DOE has concluded that the standards 

adopted in this direct final rule will not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

consumer conventional cooking 

products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. Manufacturers of these 

products currently offer units that meet 

or exceed the adopted standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

As discussed in section III.E.1.e of this 

document, EPCA directs the Attorney 

General of the United States (‘‘Attorney 

General’’) to determine the impact, if 

any, of any lessening of competition 

likely to result from a proposed 

standard and to transmit such 

determination in writing to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. To assist the 

Attorney General in making this 

determination, DOE is providing the 

Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) with 

copies of this direct final rule and the 

TSD for review. 

Overall, DOE does not anticipate that 

energy conservation standards set at the 

Recommended TSL, i.e., TSL 1, would 

significantly alter the current market 

structure that consumer conventional 

cooking products are currently sold. 

DOE does not expect this direct final 

rule to increase the concentration in an 

already concentrated market. 88 FR 

6818, 6887. DOE understands that 

barriers to entry or expansion associated 

with manufacturing and selling cooking 

products is high particularly in the 

mass-market segment. The cost of 

developing brand recognition; achieving 

manufacturing scale to lower 

production costs; and developing a 

distribution network, are all significant 

challenges. The industry has responded 

by segmenting the market into more 

focused markets that allow 

differentiation and competition on 

factors other than price. For the reasons 

described in this section, the proposed 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11531 

rule likely would not alter the 

competitive balance or market structure 

of the consumer conventional cooking 

product industry. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

direct final rule TSD presents the 

estimated impacts on electricity 

generating capacity, relative to the nonew-standards case, for the TSLs that 

DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, Fall commented that the impact 

of performance standards on energy 

security should be considered, 

particularly with respect to the need for 

diversification of energy sources to 

provide increased energy security. (Fall, 

No. 376 at pp. 1–2) Fall commented that 

performance standards should be 

technologically feasible while allowing 

a range of products utilizing an array of 

possible energy source. (Id. at p. 2) 

As discussed in section V.C of this 

document, the Secretary has concluded 

that the standards adopted in this direct 

final rule represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. As 

discussed in section V.B.4 of this 

document, consumers will continue to 

have access to cooking products with 

the same performance features across 

both electric and gas fuel types at the 

adopted TSL (the Recommended TSL 

detailed in the Joint Agreement). 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products is expected to yield 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table 

V.34 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

expected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K of 

this document. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD. 

As part of the analysis for this rule, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 that DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs for consumer 

conventional cooking products. Section 

IV.L of this document discusses the 

estimated SC–CO2 values that DOE 

used. Table V.35 presents the value of 

CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL for 

each of the SC–CO2 cases. The timeseries of annual values is presented for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.074</GPH>

Table V.34 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products; 30 Years of Shipments* 

Trial Standard Level 

1 2 3 

Electric Power Sector and Site Emissions 

C02(million metric tons) 3.61 18.80 32.90 

CHi (thousand tons) 0.25 0.73 1.77 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.04 0.09 0.24 

SO2 (thousand tons) 1.13 2.21 6.83 

NOx (thousand tons) 1.75 13.82 20.46 

Hg (tons) 0.01 0.01 0.05 

Upstream Emissions 

C02(million metric tons) 0.38 2.37 3.79 

CHi (thousand tons) 34.45 234.68 364.45 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.00 O.Ql 0.01 

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.02 0.05 0.13 

NOx (thousand tons) 5.87 37.32 59.57 

Hg (tons) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total FFC Emissions 

C02(million metric tons) 3.99 21.16 36.69 

CHi (thousand tons) 34.70 235.42 366.22 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.04 0.10 0.25 

SO2 (thousand tons) 1.15 2.26 6.96 

NOx (thousand tons) 7.61 51.14 80.03 

Hg (tons) 0.01 0.01 0.05 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 
11532 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this 

document, DOE estimated the climate 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of methane and N2O 

that DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs for consumer 

conventional cooking products. Table 

V.36 presents the value of the CH4

emissions reduction at each TSL, and 

Table V.37 presents the value of the N2O 

emissions reduction at each TSL. The 

time-series of annual values is presented 

for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the global and U.S. 

economy continues to evolve rapidly. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

methodologies for estimating the 

monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this and other rulemakings, as 

well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. DOE notes, 

however, that the adopted standards 

would be economically justified even 

without inclusion of monetized benefits 

of reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX and SO2 emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for consumer 

conventional cooking products. The 

dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L of this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.075</GPH> ER14FE24.076</GPH> ER14FE24.077</GPH>

Table V.35 Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Products; 30 Years of Shipments* 

SC-CO2 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Avera2e Avera2e Avera2e 95th percentile 

billion 2022$ 

1 0.04 0.17 0.27 0.52 

2 0.22 0.94 1.47 2.85 

3 0.39 1.64 2.55 4.96 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 

Table V.36 Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Consumer 

Conventional Cooking Products; 30 Years of Shipments* 

SC-CH4 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Avera2e Avera2e Avera2e 95th percentile 

billion 2022$ 

1 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.13 

2 0.11 0.34 0.47 0.89 

3 0.18 0.52 0.73 1.39 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 

Table V.37 Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Consumer 

Conventional Cook.in~ Products; 30 Years of Shipments* 

SC-N20 Case 

Discount Rate and Statistics 

TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 

Avera2e Avera2e Avera2e 95th percentile 

billion 2022$ 

1 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 

2 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.004 

3 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.011 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11533 

document. Table V.38 presents the 

present value for NOX emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, 

and Table V.39 presents similar results 

for SO2 emissions reductions. The 

results in these tables reflect application 

of EPA’s low dollar-per-ton values, 

which DOE used to be conservative. The 

time-series of annual values is presented 

for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of direct PM and other co-pollutants 

may be significant. DOE has not 

included monetary benefits of the 

reduction of Hg emissions because the 

amount of reduction is very small. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors 

were considered in this analysis. 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

Table V.40 presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the economic benefits resulting from 

reduced GHG and NOX and SO2

emissions to the NPV of consumer 

benefits calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped during the period 

2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 

(the Recommended TSL) and 2028–2057 

for TSL 1. The climate benefits 

associated with reduced GHG emissions 

resulting from the adopted standards are 

global benefits and are also calculated 

based on the lifetime of consumer 

conventional cooking products shipped 

during the period 2027–2056 for all 

TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended 

TSL) and 2028–2057 for TSL 1. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.078</GPH> ER14FE24.079</GPH>

Table V.38 Present Value ofNOx Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Products; 30 Years of Shipments* 

I TSL 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 

million 2022$ 

1 134.2 347.0 

2 805.2 1,999.2 

3 1,367.8 3,387.9 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 

Table V.39 Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Products; 30 Years of Shipments* 

7% Discount Rate I 3% Discount Rate 

TSL 

million 2022$ 

1 29.2 74.6 

2 60.6 148.6 

3 191.2 465.6 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 
11534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

141P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/ 

0034–6527.00354. 

142Sanstad, A. H. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf 

(last accessed November 2, 2023). 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 

amended standard must also result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered the impacts of new and 

amended standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products at each 

TSL, beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the highest efficiency level 

that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification. These include 

the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases; (4) excessive focus on the 

short term, in the form of inconsistent 

weighting of future energy cost savings 

relative to available returns on other 

investments; (5) computational or other 

difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) 

a divergence in incentives (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Having less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forgo the purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

is included in the MIA. Second, DOE 

accounts for energy savings attributable 

only to products actually used by 

consumers in the standards case; if a 

standard decreases the number of 

products purchased by consumers, this 

decreases the potential energy savings 

from an energy conservation standard. 

DOE provides estimates of shipments 

and changes in the volume of product 

purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final 

rule TSD. However, DOE’s current 

analysis does not explicitly control for 

heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 

preferences across subcategories of 

products or specific features, or 

consumer price sensitivity variation 

according to household income.141

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy 

conservation standards, and potential 

enhancements to the methodology by 

which these impacts are defined and 

estimated in the regulatory process.142

DOE welcomes comments on how to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.080</GPH>

Table V.40 Consumer NPV Combined with Present Value of Climate Benefits and 

Health Benefits; 30 Years of Shipments* 

Category TSL 1 TSL2 TSL 3** 

Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC-GHG case 2.0 2.8 (39.5) 

3% Average SC-GHG case 2.2 3.8 (37.9) 

2.5% Average SC-GHG case 2.3 4.4 (36.7) 

3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case 2.6 6.2 (33.7) 

Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC-GHG case 0.9 0.8 

3% Average SC-GHG case 1.0 1.7 

2.5% Average SC-GHG case 1.2 2.4 

3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case 1.5 4.2 

*2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL); 2028-2057 for TSL 1 

**Negative values denoted in parentheses. 

(24.2) 

(22.6) 

(21.5) 

(18.4) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11535 

more fully assess the potential impact of 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer choice and how to quantify 

this impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Consumer Conventional 

Cooking Product Standards 

Table V.41 and Table V.42 summarize 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for consumer conventional 

cooking products. The national impacts 

are measured over the lifetime of 

consumer conventional cooking 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the anticipated 

year of compliance with the new and 

amended standards (2027–2056 for all 

TSLs except TSL 1, the Recommended 

TSL; 2028–2057 for TSL 1). The energy 

savings, emissions reductions, and 

value of emissions reductions refer to 

full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is presenting 

monetized benefits of GHG emissions 

reductions in accordance with the 

applicable Executive Orders and would 

reach the same conclusion presented in 

this notice in the absence of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases, including the 

Interim Estimates presented by the 

Interagency Working Group. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A of this 

document. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.081</GPH>

Table V.41 Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products TSLs: National Impacts 

Category TSLl TSL2 TSL3 

Cumulative FFC National Ener!!v Savings 

Quads 0.22 0.66 1.52 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) 3.99 21.16 36.69 

CH4 (thousand tons) 34.70 235.42 366.22 

N2O (thousand tons) 0.04 0.10 0.25 

SO2 (thousand tons) 1.15 2.26 6.96 

NOx(thousand tons) 7.61 51.14 80.03 

Hg (tons) 0.01 0.01 0.05 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$1 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 1.63 4.30 3.97 

Climate Benefits* 0.22 1.28 2.16 

Health Benefits** 0.42 2.15 3.85 

Total Benefitst 2.27 7.73 9.99 

Consumer Incremental Product Costst 0.07 3.96 47.86 

Consumer Net Benefits 1.56 0.34 (43.89) 

Total Net Benefits 2.20 3.77 (37.87) 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$1 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 0.69 1.90 0.86 

Climate Benefits* 0.22 1.28 2.16 

Health Benefits** 0.16 0.87 1.56 

Total Benefitst 1.07 4.04 4.58 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs! 0.04 2.30 27.21 

Consumer Net Benefits 0.65 (0.40) (26.34) 

Total Net Benefits 1.03 1.74 (22.62) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped 

during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) and 2028-2057 for TSL 1. These 

results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped during the period 2027-2056 

for all TSLs except TSL 1 and 2057 from the products shipped during the period 2028-2057 for TSL 1. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together, these 

represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average 

SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. To 

monetize the benefits ofreducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 

13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for 

NOx and SO2) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to 

assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. The health 

benefits are presented at real discount rates of3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

t Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits 

for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but 

DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering 

the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. 

t Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 
11536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 3 would save an estimated 

1.52 quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 3, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would 

decrease compared to the no-newstandards case by $26.34 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $43.89 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 36.69 Mt of CO2, 6.96 

thousand tons of SO2, 80.03 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.05 tons of Hg, 366.22 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.25 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 3 is 

$2.2 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

3 is $1.6 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $3.9 billion using a 3- 

percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 3 is $22.6 billion less 

than the no-new-standards case. Using a 

3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 3 is $37.9 billion less than the noVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:06 Feb 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14FER3.SGM 14FER3

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.082</GPH>

Table V.42 Summary of Analytical Results for Consumer Conventional Cooking 

Products TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts* 

Category TSLl TSL2 TSL3 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No-new-standards 1,457-1,458 1,042-1,078 (302)-(25) case INPV = 1,601) 

Industry NPV (% change) (9.0}-(9.0) (34.9)--{32.6) (118.9)--{101.6) 

Consumer Averae:e LCC Savine:s (2022$) 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops 62.80 8.54 (638.87) 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a 62.80 8.54 (638.87) Component of a Combined Cooking Product 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops 3.09 (1.03) (1.03) 

Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined 3.09 (1.03) (1.03) Cooking Product 

Electric Ovens 16.23 (39.55) (24.87) 

Gas Ovens 15.17 (24.16) (24.16) 

Shipment-Weighted Average •• 23.34 (17.72) (153.51) 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops 0.6 4.0 170.4 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a 0.6 4.0 170.4 Component of a Combined Cooking Product 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops 6.6 10.5 10.5 

Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined 6.6 10.5 10.5 Cooking Product 

Electric Ovens 2.1 25.4 20.8 

Gas Ovens 1.9 18.0 18.0 

Shipment-Weighted Average •• 2.7 16.1 50.7 

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops 0% 52% 100% 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top as a 0% 52% 100% Component of a Combined Cooking Product 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops 1% 38% 38% 

Gas Cooking Top as a Component of a Combined 1% 38% 38% Cooking Product 

Electric Ovens 0% 27% 81% 

Gas Ovens 0% 21% 21% 

Shipment-Weighted Average •• 0% 34% 64% 

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* All TSLs except TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL) have a compliance year of2027; TSL 1 has a compliance year of 

2028. 

* * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2022. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11537 

new-standards case. The estimated total 

NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a loss of $638.87 for electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes, a 

loss $1.03 for gas cooking top product 

classes, a shipments-weighted average 

loss of $24.87 for electric ovens, and a 

shipment-weighted average loss of 

$24.16 for gas ovens. The simple 

payback period is 170.5 years for 

electric smooth element cooking top 

product classes, 10.5 years for gas 

cooking top product classes, 20.8 years 

for electric ovens, and 18.0 years for gas 

ovens. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing a net LCC cost is 100 

percent for electric smooth element 

cooking top product classes, 38 percent 

for gas cooking top product classes, 81 

percent for electric ovens, and 21 

percent for gas ovens. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,903 

million to a decrease of $1,626 million, 

which corresponds to decreases of 118.9 

percent and 101.6 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$2,069.2 million to comply with 

standards set at TSL 3. DOE estimates 

that less than 1 percent of electric 

smooth element cooking top (standalone 

and component of a combined cooking 

product) shipments, 41 percent of gas 

cooking top (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product) 

shipments, zero percent of electric 

standard oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, zero percent of electric 

self-clean oven (freestanding) 

shipments, 2 percent of electric selfclean oven (built-in) shipments, 62 

percent of gas standard oven 

(freestanding) shipments, 38 percent of 

gas standard oven (built-in) shipments, 

93 percent of gas self-clean oven 

(freestanding) shipments, and 77 

percent of gas self-clean oven (built-in) 

shipments would already meet the 

efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 

2027. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

3 for consumer conventional cooking 

products, the benefits of energy savings, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on many consumers 

(e.g., negative LCC savings across all 

product classes), and the significant 

impacts on manufacturers, including the 

large conversion costs and the 

significant reduction in INPV. A 

significant fraction of consumers across 

all product classes would experience a 

net LCC cost and negative LCC savings. 

The consumer NPV is negative at both 

3 and 7 percent. The potential reduction 

in INPV could be as high as 118.9 

percent. Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE next considered TSL 2, which 

represents EL 2 for all product classes. 

TSL 2 would save an estimated 0.66 

quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 2, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would 

decrease compared to the no-newstandards case by $0.40 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and increase 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

by $0.34 billion using a discount rate of 

3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 21.16 Mt of CO2, 2.26 

thousand tons of SO2, 51.14 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 235.42 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.10 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 2 is 

$1.3 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

2 is $0.9 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $2.1 billion using a 3- 

percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 2 is $1.7 billion. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs, the estimated total NPV at 

TSL 2 is $3.8 billion. The estimated 

total NPV is provided for additional 

information, however DOE primarily 

relies upon the NPV of consumer 

benefits when determining whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $8.54 for electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes, a 

loss of $1.03 for gas cooking top product 

classes, a shipments-weighted average 

loss of $39.55 for electric ovens, and a 

shipment-weighted average loss of 

$24.16 for gas ovens. The simple 

payback period is 4.0 years for electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes, 10.5 years for gas cooking top 

product classes, 25.4 years for electric 

ovens, and 18.0 years for gas ovens. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is 52 percent for electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes, 38 percent for gas cooking top 

product classes, 27 percent for electric 

ovens, and 21 percent for gas ovens. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $559 

million to a decrease of $522 million, 

which corresponds to decreases of 34.9 

percent and 32.6 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$576.5 million to comply with 

standards set at TSL 2. DOE estimates 

that approximately 15 percent of electric 

smooth element cooking top (standalone 

and component of a combined cooking 

product) shipments, 41 percent of gas 

cooking top (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product) 

shipments, 38 percent of electric 

standard oven (freestanding) shipments, 

30 percent of electric standard oven 

(built-in) shipments, 77 percent of 

electric self-clean oven (freestanding) 

shipments, 88 percent of electric selfclean ovens (built-in) shipments, 62 

percent of gas standard oven 

(freestanding) shipments, 38 percent of 

gas standard oven (built-in), 93 percent 

of gas self-clean oven (freestanding) 

shipments, and 77 percent of gas selfclean oven (built-in) shipments would 

already meet or exceed the efficiency 

levels required at TSL 2 in 2027. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

2 for consumer conventional cooking 

products, the benefits of energy savings, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on many consumers, 

and the significant impacts on 

manufacturers, including the large 

conversion costs and the significant 

reduction in INPV. At TSL 2, 

consumers, on average, would 

experience a negative LCC savings for 

gas cooking tops, electric ovens, and gas 

ovens. For electric cooking tops, 52 

percent of consumers would experience 

a net cost. At TSL 2, the simple payback 

period for electric and gas ovens would 

exceed the average product lifetime. 

Additionally, the consumer NPV is 

negative at 7 percent. The potential 

reduction in INPV could be as high as 

34.9 percent. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 2 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE next considered the 

Recommended TSL, which represents 

EL 1 for all product classes. The 

Recommended TSL would save an 

estimated 0.22 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV 

of consumer benefit would be $0.65 

billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $1.56 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11538 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at the Recommended TSL are 3.99 Mt of 

CO2, 1.15 thousand tons of SO2, 7.61 

thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 

34.70 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.04 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at the 

Recommended TSL is $0.22 billion. The 

estimated monetary value of the health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions at the Recommended TSL is 

$0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount 

rate and $0.42 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at the Recommended TSL is 

$1.03 billion. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs, 

the estimated total NPV at the 

Recommended TSL is $2.20 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a proposed standard level is 

economically justified. 

At the Recommended TSL, the 

average LCC impact is a savings of 

$62.80 for electric smooth element 

cooking top product classes, a savings of 

$3.09 for gas cooking top product 

classes, a shipments-weighted average 

savings of $16.23 for electric ovens, and 

a shipment-weighted average savings of 

$15.17 for gas ovens. The simple 

payback period is 0.6 years for electric 

smooth element cooking top product 

classes, 6.6 years for gas cooking top 

product classes, 2.1 years for electric 

ovens, and 1.9 years for gas ovens. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing a net 

LCC cost is 0 percent for electric smooth 

element cooking top product classes, 1 

percent for gas cooking top product 

classes, 0 percent for electric ovens, and 

0 percent for gas ovens. 

At the Recommended TSL, the 

projected change in INPV ranges from a 

decrease of $144 million to a decrease 

of $143 million, which corresponds to 

decreases of 9.0 percent and 9.0 percent, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 

industry must invest $66.7 million to 

comply with standards set at the 

Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that 

approximately 77 percent of electric 

smooth element cooking top (standalone 

and component of a combined cooking 

product) shipments, 97 percent of gas 

cooking top (standalone and component 

of a combined cooking product) 

shipments, 95 percent of electric 

standard oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, 95 percent of electric 

self-clean oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, 96 percent of gas 

standard oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments, and 96 percent of gas 

self-clean oven (freestanding and builtin) shipments would already meet or 

exceed the efficiency levels required at 

the Recommended TSL in 2028. 

For all TSLs considered in this direct 

final rule—except for the Recommended 

TSL—DOE is bound by the 3-year lead 

time requirements in EPCA when 

determining compliance dates (i.e., 

compliance with new and amended 

standards required in 2027). For the 

Recommended TSL, DOE’s analysis 

utilized the January 31, 2028, 

compliance date specified in the Joint 

Agreement as it was an integral part of 

the multi-product joint 

recommendation. A 2028 compliance 

year provides manufacturers additional 

flexibility to spread capital 

requirements, engineering resources, 

and conversion activities over a longer 

period of time depending on the 

individual needs of each manufacturer. 

Furthermore, these delayed compliance 

dates provide additional lead time and 

certainty for supplier of components 

that improve efficiency. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has concluded that at a 

standard set at the Recommended TSL 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products would be economically 

justified. At this TSL, the average LCC 

savings for all consumer conventional 

cooking product consumers is positive. 

A shipment-weighted 0 percent of 

conventional cooking product 

consumers experience a net cost, with 

the largest impact being 1 percent net 

cost for gas cooking top product classes. 

The FFC national energy savings are 

significant and the NPV of consumer 

benefits is positive using both a 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rate. 

Notably, the benefits to consumers 

vastly outweigh the cost to 

manufacturers. At the Recommended 

TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, 

even measured at the more conservative 

discount rate of 7 percent is over 4 times 

higher than the maximum estimated 

manufacturers’ loss in INPV. The 

standard levels at the Recommended 

TSL are economically justified even 

without weighing the estimated 

monetary value of emissions reductions. 

When those emissions reductions are 

included—representing $0.22 billion in 

climate benefits (associated with the 

average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount 

rate), and $0.42 billion (using a 3- 

percent discount rate) or $0.16 billion 

(using a 7-percent discount rate) in 

health benefits—the rationale becomes 

stronger still. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. The walk-down is not a 

comparative analysis, as a comparative 

analysis would result in the 

maximization of net benefits instead of 

energy savings that are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, 

which would be contrary to the statute. 

86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has 

not conducted a comparative analysis to 

select the new and amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE notes that 

the Recommended TSL has higher 

average LCC savings, a shorter average 

payback period, a lower fraction of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost, 

and higher consumer net present values 

compared to TSL 2 and 3. 

Although DOE considered new and 

amended standard levels for consumer 

conventional cooking products by 

grouping the efficiency levels for each 

product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates 

all analyzed efficiency levels in its 

analysis. For electric smooth element 

cooking top product classes, the 

Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 1, 

which incorporates low-standby-loss 

electronic controls. Setting a standard at 

EL 2 or EL 3 would result in a majority 

of consumers experiencing a net LCC 

cost and longer payback periods relative 

to EL 1. For gas cooking top product 

classes, the Recommended TSL 

corresponds to EL 1, which represents 

the efficiency level defined in the Joint 

Agreement and which would not 

preclude any combination of other 

features mentioned by manufacturers 

(e.g., multiple HIR burners, continuous 

cast-iron grates, different nominal unit 

widths, sealed burners, at least one LIR 

burner, multiple dual-stacked and/or 

multi-ring HIR burners, and at least one 

extra-high input rate burner), as 

demonstrated by products from multiple 

manufacturers in the expanded test 

sample. Setting a standard at EL 2 

would result in an average net LCC cost 

and a higher payback period relative to 

EL 1. For electric and gas ovens, the 

Recommended TSL corresponds to EL 1, 

which incorporates switch mode power 

supplies. A standard at EL 2 or EL 3 for 

electric ovens would result in a 

significantly higher percentage of 

consumers experiencing a net LCC cost 

and longer payback periods relative to 

EL 1. Similarly, for gas ovens, a 

standard at EL 2 would result in a larger 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11539 

143The analyses for residential clothes washers 

(88 FR 13520); consumer clothes dryers (87 FR 

51734); consumer conventional cooking products 

(88 FR 6818); dishwashers (88 FR 32514); and 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (88 

FR 12452) utilized a 2027 compliance year for 

analysis at the proposed rule stage. Miscellaneous 

refrigeration products (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2029 

compliance year for the NOPR analysis. 

percentage of consumers experiencing a 

net LCC cost and longer payback 

periods relative to EL 1. The adopted 

levels at the Recommended TSL result 

in positive LCC savings for all product 

classes and a lower percentage of 

consumers experiencing a net cost to the 

point where DOE has concluded that 

they are economically justified, as 

discussed for the Recommended TSL in 

the preceding paragraphs. 

Accordingly, the Secretary concludes 

that the Recommended TSL would offer 

the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE adopts the energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products at the 

Recommended TSL. 

While DOE considered each potential 

TSL under the criteria laid out in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) as previously discussed, 

DOE notes that the Recommended TSL 

for consumer conventional cooking 

products adopted in this direct final 

rule is part of a multi-product Joint 

Agreement covering six rulemakings 

(consumer conventional cooking 

products; residential clothes washers; 

consumer clothes dryers; dishwashers; 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers; and miscellaneous refrigeration 

products). The signatories indicate that 

the Joint Agreement for the six 

rulemakings should be considered as a 

joint statement of recommended 

standards, to be adopted in its entirety. 

As discussed in section V.B.2.e of this 

document, many consumer 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers also manufacture 

dishwashers; refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers; residential clothes 

washers; consumer clothes dryers; and 

miscellaneous refrigeration products. 

Therefore, there are potential integrated 

benefits to the Joint Agreement. Rather 

than requiring compliance with five 

new and amended standards in a single 

year (2027),143 the negotiated multiproduct Joint Agreement staggers the 

compliance dates for the five amended 

standards over a 4-year period (2027– 

2030). In response to the February 2023 

SNOPR, AHAM expressed concerns 

about the timing of ongoing home 

appliance rulemakings. Specifically, 

AHAM commented that DOE to abide 

by Process Rule requirements and take 

action to fully review the cumulative 

impacts its rules will have on 

manufacturers and consumers, with this 

review including examination of the 

potential impact on the economy and 

inflation as a result of the 

unprecedented stringency and close 

compliance dates of DOE’s recently 

proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 2285 

at pp. 44–47) AHAM commented that 

DOE’s proposed levels for consumer 

clothes dryers, residential clothes 

washers, consumer conventional 

cooking products, refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and its 

final rule for room air conditioners will 

require significant redesign of 

products—and in the case of gas 

cooking tops and top-load residential 

clothes washers, the complete redesign 

of entire product lines. (Id.) AHAM 

repeated its request that DOE 

acknowledge this cumulative regulatory 

burden and take action, such as spacing 

out its final rules, allowing more leadtime by issuing final rules well before 

publishing them in the Federal Register, 

and reducing the stringency of 

standards such that fewer percentages of 

products would require complete redesign. (Id.) AHAM has submitted 

similar comments to other ongoing 

home appliance rulemakings. As AHAM 

is a key signatory of the Joint 

Agreement, DOE understands that the 

compliance dates recommended in the 

Joint Agreement would help reduce 

cumulative regulatory burden. These 

compliance dates help relieve concern 

on the part of some manufacturers about 

their ability to allocate sufficient 

resources to comply with multiple 

concurrent new and amended 

standards. The Joint Agreement also 

provides additional years of regulatory 

certainty for manufacturers and their 

suppliers. 

The new and amended energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products are 

shown in Table V.43 and Table V.44. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.083</GPH>

Table V.43 New and Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Conventional 

Cookine: Tops 

Product Class Maximum integrated annual energy 

consumption (IAEC) 

Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops No standard 

Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops 207 kWh/year 

Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component 207 kWh/year of a Combined Cooking Product 

Gas Standalone Cooking Tops 1,770 kBtu/year 

Gas Cooking Top Component of a Combined 1,770 kBtu/year Cooking Product 
11540 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The Secretary also concludes that an 

amended standard is not technologically 

feasible and economically justified for 

electric open (coil) element cooking 

tops. Therefore, DOE is not adopting 

any energy conservation standards for 

electric open (coil) element cooking 

tops. 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Adopted Standards 

The benefits and costs of the adopted 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022$) of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the adopted standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy), minus 

increases in product purchase costs, and 

(2) the annualized monetary value of the 

climate and health benefits. 

Table V.45 shows the annualized 

values for consumer conventional 

cooking products under the 

Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. 

The results under the primary estimate 

are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reductions, and the 3-percent 

discount rate case for GHG social costs, 

the estimated cost of the adopted 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products is $3.9 million per 

year in increased equipment installed 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $68.1 million from reduced 

equipment operating costs, $12.4 

million in GHG reductions, and $16.1 

million from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $92.6 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the adopted standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products is $4.0 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the estimated annual 

benefits are $90.8 million in reduced 

operating costs, $12.4 million from GHG 

reductions, and $23.5 million from 

reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this 

case, the net benefit amounts to $122.7 

million per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.084</GPH>

Table V.44 New and Amended Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for 

Conventional Ovens 

Product Class New and Amended Standards 

Electric Ovens Shall not be equipped with a control system that uses linear 

power sunnlv. * 

The control system for gas ovens shall: 

Gas Ovens (1) Not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light; 

and 

(2) Not be equipped with a linear power supply. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11541 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.085</GPH>

Table V.45 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards (Recommended 

TSL) t or C C onsumer onven f 10na 1 C 00 ki n, P d t ro uc s 

Million 2022$/year 

Primary Low-Net- High-NetBenefits Benefits Estimate Estimate Estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 90.8 84.0 95.6 

Climate Benefits* 12.4 11.9 12.5 

Health Benefits** 23.5 22.6 23.8 

Total Benefitst 126.7 118.4 131.9 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs! 4.0 4.1 3.8 

Net Benefits 122.7 114.3 128.1 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPvtt) (13.8) (13.8) (13.8) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings 68.1 63.3 71.5 

Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate) 12.4 11.9 12.5 

Health Benefits** 16.1 15.5 16.3 

Total Benefitst 96.6 90.7 100.3 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs! 3.9 4.0 3.8 

Net Benefits 92.6 86.7 96.5 

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPvtt) (13.8) (13.8) (13.8) 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 

2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products 

shipped in 2028-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy 

prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in 

the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive 

projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.2 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs 

may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this 

document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 

percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for 

SO2 and NOx) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to 
11542 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

D. Reporting, Certification, and 

Sampling Plan 

Manufacturers, including importers, 

must use product-specific certification 

templates to certify compliance to DOE. 

For consumer conventional cooking 

products, the certification template 

reflects the general certification 

requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 

and the product-specific requirements 

specified at 10 CFR 429.23. 

1. Sampling and Test Procedure 

Repeatability 

In manufacturer interviews, multiple 

manufacturers expressed concern about 

the variability of cooking top test results 

and the potential impact on certifying 

compliance, but none provided 

information regarding how DOE should 

consider such variability in its analysis 

of potential energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking tops. 

DOE notes that as part of the August 

2022 TP Final Rule, a sampling plan for 

conventional cooking tops was 

established at 10 CFR 429.23, requiring 

that a sample of sufficient size be tested 

to ensure that any represented value of 

IAEC be greater than the mean of the 

sample or than the upper 97.5-percent 

confidence limit of the true mean 

divided by 1.05. DOE did not propose 

to amend the product-specific 

certification requirements for these 

products in the February 2023 SNOPR 

because it did not have information 

regarding whether the confidence limit 

should be adjusted. 88 FR 6818, 6895. 

DOE sought comment and data to 

potentially re-evaluate the sampling 

plan for cooking tops in the context of 

any potential performance standards for 

these products. Id. 

Consumers’ Research noted that the 

DOE test method for conventional 

cooking tops was adopted in September 

2022 and commented that DOE does not 

have any significant real-world data on 

how current gas cooking tops would 

perform under this testing and sampling 

method. (Consumers’ Research, No. 

2267 at pp. 3–4) 

AHAM asserted that DOE regulations 

require manufacturers to test more than 

one unit in an effort to account for 

variation. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 11) 

AHAM commented that the data it 

presented in its comments coupled with 

DOE’s findings related to test procedure 

variation should be considered in the 

context of certification and enforcement. 

(Id.) AHAM commented that DOE 

should ensure that its rules recognize 

the variation in this particular case, 

which exceeds that of other test 

procedures, and should account for that 

fact—which its own data and analysis 

demonstrate—rather than ignore it. (Id.) 

DOE notes that it neither received nor 

is it aware of any new data in response 

to the February 2023 SNOPR upon 

which to re-evaluate the sampling plan 

for conventional cooking tops 

established at 10 CFR 429.23. 

2. Single-Zone Conventional Cooking 

Tops 

DOE notes that some conventional 

cooking tops are distributed in 

commerce with only a single cooking 

zone with a relatively high input power 

for electric cooking tops or high burner 

input rate for gas cooking tops. Singlecooking zone cooking tops do not 

provide the ability for consumers to 

cook multiple food loads at the same 

time and, particularly for gas cooking 

tops, may not operate over the full range 

of input rates associated with all typical 

cooking processes for which a 

conventional cooking top is used (e.g., 

boiling, saute ́ing, simmering, reheating) 

or accommodate the complete range of 

typical cookware sizes. To achieve this 

full functionality, conventional cooking 

tops with single cooking zones are 

typically used in conjunction with one 

or more additional conventional 

cooking tops to provide the consumer 

with the choice of the number and type 

of cooking zones to use. Indeed, DOE 

observes that manufacturers of singlezone cooking tops that are not portable 

conventional cooking tops also typically 

manufacture and market comparable 

dual-zone cooking tops with similar 

construction and design features, and 

consumers may choose to install nonportable single-zone cooking units in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3ER14FE24.086</GPH>

assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PMis emissions. See 

section IV.L of this document for more details. 

t Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent 

discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. 

l Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs. 

U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as 

discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof this document. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all 

impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to 

manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately 

conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the 

detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion 

costs, cash flow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. 

The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, 

capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry 

weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 

12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For 

consumer conventional cooking products, the annualized change in INPV is -$13.8 million. DOE accounts for that 

range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard level is economically justified. See section V.C of this 

document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross 

Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost 

Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not 

be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes 

the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section 

IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to 

society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and 

E.O. 12866. IfDOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the 

annualized net benefits would be $108.9 million at 3-percent discount rate and would be $78.8 million at 7-percent 

discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values. 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11543 

combination with one or more of such 

comparable dual-zone units to achieve 

full cooking functionality. As a result, 

DOE stated in the February 2023 SNOPR 

that it expects that evaluating the IAEC 

of a single-zone non-portable cooking 

top by itself would not be representative 

of the average use of the product, and 

therefore proposed that a more 

representative value of IAEC would be 

based on a tested configuration of the 

typical combination of a single-zone 

cooking top paired with one or more 

additional cooking tops, such that the 

combination of conventional cooking 

tops in aggregate provides complete 

functionality to the consumer. 88 FR 

6818, 6837. 

Based on DOE’s review of 

commercially available products, singlezone and dual-zone non-portable 

cooking tops typically range in width 

from 12 inches to 15 inches; DOE 

therefore proposed in the February 2023 

SNOPR that the most representative 

pairing for the tested configuration of a 

single-zone cooking top would be the 

combination of one single-zone cooking 

top and one comparable dual-zone 

cooking top, because the overall width 

of the combination would not exceed 

the width of typical conventional 

cooking tops with four to six cooking 

zones (24 inches to 36 inches) and 

because this is the minimum number of 

such cooking tops that would ensure 

complete functionality. Id. Based on its 

expectation that consumers will select, 

to the extent possible, matching 

products for this combination, DOE 

proposed to define the tested 

configuration of a single-zone nonportable cooking top as the single-zone 

unit along with the same manufacturer’s 

dual-zone non-portable cooking top unit 

within the same product class and with 

similar design characteristics (e.g., 

construction materials, user interface), 

and use the same heating technology 

(i.e., gas flame, electric resistive heating, 

or electric inductive heating) and energy 

source (e.g., voltage, gas type). Id. DOE 

stated that it expects that these products 

comprising the test configuration 

typically would be marketed as being 

within the same ‘‘product line’’ by 

manufacturers. Id. In instances where 

the manufacturer’s product line 

contains more than one dual-zone nonportable cooking top unit, DOE 

proposed that the dual-zone unit with 

the least energy consumption, as 

measured using appendix I1, be selected 

for the tested configuration, which along 

with the single-zone counterpart, would 

span the full range of expected percooking zone energy efficiency 

performance. Id. 

In the approach DOE proposed in the 

February 2023 SNOPR, the 

representative IAEC of the single-zone 

non-portable cooking top would factor 

in the performance of the two additional 

cooking zones included in the dual-zone 

cooking top that is part of the tested 

configuration. Id. That is, the IAEC 

would be based on the average active 

mode performance of the three cooking 

zones comprising the tested 

configuration. Because the single-zone 

non-portable cooking top contains one 

of the three burners, while the 

comparable dual-zone cooking top 

contains two, DOE additionally 

proposed that the IAEC of the singlezone non-portable cooking top unit 

under consideration be calculated as the 

weighted average of the measured IAEC 

of the single-zone cooking top and the 

IAEC dual-zone cooking top in the 

tested configuration, using the number 

of cooking zones as the basis for the 

weighting factors; i.e., the single-zone 

IAEC would have a weighting of 1⁄3 and 

the dual-zone IAEC would have a 

weighting of 2⁄3. Id. Recognizing that the 

dual-zone cooking top in the tested 

configuration would already be 

separately tested to determine its IAEC 

value for certification purposes, to 

minimize testing burden associated with 

this approach, DOE proposed that the 

represented IAEC value of the dual-zone 

cooking top (determined separately) 

would be used in the calculation of the 

single-zone cooking top’s represented 

IAEC value (i.e., DOE would not require 

the dual-zone cooking top to be tested 

again for the purpose of determining the 

represented IAEC value of the singlezone cooking top). Id. DOE stated that 

it expected that this approach would 

produce results that are most 

representative for the tested 

configuration. Id. Further, DOE 

proposed that if there is no dual-zone 

non-portable cooking top within the 

same product class and with similar 

construction and design features as the 

single-zone non-portable cooking top 

being tested, then consumers are likely 

to purchase and install the single-zone 

cooking top for use on its own; in that 

case, the most representative IAEC of 

the single-zone cooking top is the IAEC 

of that product as measured according 

to appendix I1. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposed tested configuration and 

determination of representative IAEC for 

single-zone non-portable cooking tops. 

Id. 

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE 

additionally proposed that a cooking top 

basic model is an individual cooking 

top model and does not include any 

combinations of cooking top models 

that may be installed together. Id. 

Accordingly, as part of DOE’s proposal, 

each individual cooking top model that 

may be installed in combination would 

be rated as a separate basic model, and 

any combination of such cooking top 

models that are typically installed in 

combination would not itself need to 

have a separate representation as its 

own basic model. Id. at 88 FR 6837– 

6838. In other words, DOE stated that it 

did not expect combinations to be 

separately represented or certified to the 

Department as their own basic models. 

Id. at 88 FR 6838. DOE stated that this 

proposal is consistent with the current 

definition of a basic model at 10 CFR 

430.2, which specifies that the basic 

model includes all units of a given type 

of covered product (or class thereof) 

manufactured by one manufacturer; 

having the same primary energy source; 

and, which have essentially identical 

electrical, physical, and functional (or 

hydraulic) characteristics that affect 

energy consumption, energy efficiency, 

water consumption, or water efficiency. 

Id. Therefore, DOE stated that it 

believed this clarification would be 

helpful to provide specific context for 

cooking tops, but that DOE was not 

proposing specific amendments to the 

basic model definition in this rule. Id. 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to not define ‘‘basic model’’ 

with respect to cooking products or 

cooking tops, and on possible 

definitions for ‘‘basic model’’ with 

respect to cooking products or cooking 

tops that could be used if DOE were to 

determine such a definition is 

necessary. Id. 

The Joint Agreement signatories 

suggested that the IAEC calculation of a 

single-zone cooking top be based on the 

testing of the single-zone unit by itself, 

stating that this methodology would 

reduce burden, simplify the certification 

process for single-zone cooking tops, 

and remove any ambiguity associated 

with determining which dual-zone 

models are ‘‘comparable.’’ (Joint 

Agreement signatories, No. 12814 at p. 

7) 

In accordance with the Joint 

Agreement signatories’ 

recommendation, for this direct final 

rule, DOE is not implementing any 

specific methodology for non-portable 

single-zone conventional cooking tops. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11544 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011) and E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review,’’ 88 FR 21879 (April 

11, 2023), requires agencies, to the 

extent permitted by law, to (1) propose 

or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits 

justify its costs (recognizing that some 

benefits and costs are difficult to 

quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this final 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this final 

regulatory action constitutes a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the scope of section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 

DOE has provided to OIRA an 

assessment, including the underlying 

analysis, of benefits and costs 

anticipated from the final regulatory 

action, together with, to the extent 

feasible, a quantification of those costs; 

and an assessment, including the 

underlying analysis, of costs and 

benefits of potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives to the 

planned regulation, and an explanation 

why the planned regulatory action is 

preferable to the identified potential 

alternatives. These assessments are 

summarized in this preamble and 

further detail can be found in the 

technical support document for this 

rulemaking. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any 

rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by E.O. 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE is not obligated to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking because there is not a 

requirement to publish a general notice 

of proposed rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 

U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a). As discussed 

previously, DOE has determined that 

the Joint Agreement meets the necessary 

requirements under EPCA to issue this 

direct final rule for energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products under the procedures 

in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). DOE notes that 

the NOPR for energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products published elsewhere 

in this Federal Register contains an 

IRFA. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Under the procedures established by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’), a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

OMB Control Number 1910–1400, 

Compliance Statement Energy/Water 

Conservation Standards for Appliances, 

is currently valid and assigned to the 

certification reporting requirements 

applicable to covered equipment, 

including consumer conventional 

cooking products. 

DOE’s certification and compliance 

activities ensure accurate and 

comprehensive information about the 

energy and water use characteristics of 

covered products and covered 

equipment sold in the United States. 

Manufacturers of all covered products 

and covered equipment must submit a 

certification report before a basic model 

is distributed in commerce, annually 

thereafter, and if the basic model is 

redesigned in such a manner to increase 

the consumption or decrease the 

efficiency of the basic model such that 

the certified rating is no longer 

supported by the test data. Additionally, 

manufacturers must report when 

production of a basic model has ceased 

and is no longer offered for sale as part 

of the next annual certification report 

following such cessation. DOE requires 

the manufacturer of any covered 

product or covered equipment to 

establish, maintain, and retain the 

records of certification reports, of the 

underlying test data for all certification 

testing, and of any other testing 

conducted to satisfy the requirements of 

part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. 

Certification reports provide DOE and 

consumers with comprehensive, up-todate efficiency information and support 

effective enforcement. 

Revised certification data will be 

required for gas cooking tops and gas 

ovens at the time of compliance with 

this direct final rule. New certification 

data will be required for electric cooking 

tops and electric ovens at the time of 

compliance with this direct final rule. 

However, DOE is not amending or 

creating new certification or reporting 

requirements for consumer conventional 

cooking products in this direct final 

rule. Instead, DOE may consider 

proposals to establish certification 

requirements and reporting for 

consumer conventional cooking 

products under a separate rulemaking 

regarding appliance and equipment 

certification. DOE will address changes 

to OMB Control Number 1910–1400 at 

that time, as necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this rule 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11545 

in accordance with NEPA and DOE’s 

NEPA implementing regulations (10 

CFR part 1021). DOE has determined 

that this rule qualifies for categorical 

exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it is 

a rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, none 

of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b) 

apply, no extraordinary circumstances 

exist that require further environmental 

analysis, and it meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that 

promulgation of this rule is not a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment 

within the meaning of NEPA, and does 

not require an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. 

DOE has examined this rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

direct final rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 

Therefore, no further action is required 

by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards in section 3(a) and 

section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this direct 

final rule meets the relevant standards 

of E.O. 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

regulatory action likely to result in a 

rule that may cause the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/ 

documents/umra_97.pdf. 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate, nor is it 

expected to require expenditures of 

$100 million or more in any one year by 

the private sector. As a result, the 

analytical requirements of UMRA do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Although this direct final rule would 

not have any impact on the autonomy 

or integrity of the family as an 

institution as defined, this rule could 

impact a family’s well-being. When 

developing a Family Policymaking 

Assessment, agencies must assess 

whether: (1) the action strengthens or 

erodes the stability or safety of the 

family and, particularly, the marital 

commitment; (2) the action strengthens 

or erodes the authority and rights of 

parents in the education, nurture, and 

supervision of their children; (3) the 

action helps the family perform its 

functions, or substitutes governmental 

activity for the function; (4) the action 

increases or decreases disposable 

income or poverty of families and 

children; (5) the proposed benefits of 

the action justify the financial impact on 

the family; (6) the action may be carried 

out by State or local government or by 

the family; and whether (7) the action 

establishes an implicit or explicit policy 

concerning the relationship between the 

behavior and personal responsibility of 

youth, and the norms of society. 

DOE has considered how the 

proposed benefits of this rule compare 

to the possible financial impact on a 

family (the only factor listed that is 

relevant to this final rule). As part of its 

rulemaking process, DOE must 

determine whether the energy 

conservation standards contained in this 

direct final rule are economically 

justified. As discussed in section V.C.1 

of this document, DOE has determined 

that the standards are economically 

justified because the benefits to 

consumers far outweigh the costs to 

manufacturers. Families will also see 

LCC savings as a result of this final rule. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
11546 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

144The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed July 

10, 2023). 

145The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

Moreover, as discussed further in 

section V.B.1 of this document, DOE has 

determined that for low-income 

households, average LCC savings and 

PBP at the considered efficiency levels 

are improved (i.e., higher LCC savings 

and lower payback period) as compared 

to the average for all households. 

Further, the standards will also result in 

climate and health benefits for families. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at www.

energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/

DOE%20Final%20Updated

%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this direct final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that this 

regulatory action, which sets forth new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for consumer conventional 

cooking products, is not a significant 

energy action because the standards are 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on this 

direct final rule. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and prepared a 

report describing that peer review.144

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. Because 

available data, models, and 

technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve 

DOE’s analyses. DOE is in the process 

of evaluating the resulting report.145

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this rule meets the 

criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this direct final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on January 26, 2024, 

by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 29, 

2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11547 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 430.2 by adding in 

alphabetical order a definition for 

‘‘Portable indoor conventional cooking 

top’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Portable indoor conventional cooking 

top means a conventional cooking top 

designed— 

(1) For indoor use; and 

(2) To be moved from place to place. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 430.32 by revising 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) and the heading 

to paragraph (j)(3) introductory text to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) Conventional cooking tops. (i) Gas 

cooking tops, other than gas portable 

indoor conventional cooking tops, 

manufactured on or after April 9, 2012, 

and before January 31, 2028, shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. 

(ii) Gas portable indoor conventional 

cooking tops, manufactured on or after 

April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped 

with a constant burning pilot light. 

(iii) Conventional cooking tops, other 

than portable indoor conventional 

cooking tops, manufactured on or after 

January 31, 2028, shall have an 

integrated annual energy consumption 

(IAEC), excluding any downdraft 

venting system energy consumption, no 

greater than: 

Product class 

Maximum integrated annual 

energy consumption 

(IAEC) 

(A) Electric Smooth Element Standalone Cooking Tops .............................................................................................. 207 kWh/year. 

(B) Electric Smooth Element Cooking Top Component of Combined Cooking Products ............................................ 207 kWh/year. 

(C) Gas Standalone Cooking Tops ............................................................................................................................... 1,770 kBtu/year. 

(D) Gas Cooking Top Component of Combined Cooking Products ............................................................................. 1,770 kBtu/year. 

(2) Conventional ovens. The control 

system of a conventional oven shall: 

(i) Not be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot light, for gas ovens 

manufactured on or after April 9, 2012; 

and 

(ii) Not be equipped with a linear 

power supply, for electric and gas ovens 

manufactured on or after January 31, 

2028. 

(3) Microwave ovens. * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02008 Filed 2–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES3