Vol. 80 Wednesday, 

No. 111 June 10, 2015 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Residential Conventional Ovens; Proposed Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0005] 

RIN 1904–AD15 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Conventional Ovens 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential conventional 

ovens. EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. DOE is 

proposing new and amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

conventional ovens. DOE is also 

announcing a public meeting to receive 

comment on these proposed standards 

and associated analyses and results. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section VII Public 

Participation for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than August 10, 2015. See section VII 

Public Participation for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Persons can attend the 

public meeting via webinar. For more 

information, refer to the Public 

Participation section near the end of this 

notice. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for residential 

conventional cooking products, and 

provide docket number EE–2014–BT– 

STD–0005 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AD15. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: ConventionalCooking

Products2014STD0005@ee.doe.gov. 

Include the docket number and/or RIN 

in the subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by email to Chad_S_

Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VII of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!

docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0005. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section VII for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email: 

kitchen_ranges_and_ovens@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Conventional Cooking 

Products 

III. General Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage 

B. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy 

Conservation Standards for Conventional 

Cooking Tops 

C. Test Procedure 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

E. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

F. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

2. Product Classes 

3. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Methodology 

2. Product Testing and Reverse Engineering 

3. Efficiency Levels 

4. Incremental Manufacturing Production 

Cost Estimates 

5. Consumer Utility 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33031 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

1. Product Costs 

2. Installation Costs 

3. Unit Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Compliance Date 

9. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

3. Discussion of Comments 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

3. National Impact Analysis 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts 

8. Other Factors 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Conventional Ovens 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements For Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.2 These products include 

residential conventional ovens, the 

subject of this rulemaking. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 

new or amended standard must result in 

a significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with 

these and other statutory provisions 

discussed in this notice, DOE proposes 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for residential conventional 

ovens. The proposed standards, which 

are the maximum allowable integrated 

annual energy consumption (IAEC), are 

shown in Table I–1. The integrated 

annual energy consumption includes 

active mode (including fan-only mode 

for conventional ovens), standby mode, 

and off mode energy use. These 

proposed standards, if adopted, would 

apply to all products listed in Table I– 

1 and manufactured in, or imported 

into, the United States on or after the 

date three years after the publication of 

any final rule for this rulemaking. The 

proposed standards correspond to trial 

standard level (TSL) 2, which is 

described in section V.A. DOE also 

notes that any newly adopted 

performance standards for conventional 

ovens resulting from this current 

rulemaking would not affect the current 

prescriptive standards prohibiting 

constant burning pilots for all gas 

cooking products (10 CFR 430.32(j)). 

TABLE I–1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS

Product class Maximum integrated annual energy consumption (IAEC) 

Electric Standard Oven, Free-standing .................................................... 122.5 + (31.8 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Electric Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-In .................................................. 128.6 + (31.8 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Electric Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing ................................................. 163.2 + (42.3 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Electric Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-In ................................................ 169.1 + (42.3 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Gas Standard Oven, Free-Standing ......................................................... 492.9 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Gas Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-In ....................................................... 499.5 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Gas Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing ...................................................... 746.7 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Gas Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-In ..................................................... 755.5 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Note: The Rated Cavity Volume is the volume of the oven cavity in cubic feet as measured using the final DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix I. 

As discussed in section III.B, DOE has 

decided to defer its decision regarding 

whether to adopt amended energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking tops, pending further 

rulemaking. In both the test procedure 

NOPR published on January 30, 2013 

(78 FR 6232, the January 2013 TP 

NOPR) and the test procedure 

supplemental NOPR (SNOPR) published 

on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71894, the 

December 2014 TP SNOPR), DOE 

proposed amendments to the cooking 

products test procedure in Appendix I 

to subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR part 

430 that would allow for the testing of 

active mode energy consumption of 

induction cooking tops. After reviewing 

public comments on the December 2014 

TP SNOPR, conducting interviews with 

manufacturers, and performing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33032 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3The average LCC savings are measured relative 

to the base-case efficiency distribution, which 

depicts the market in the compliance year (see 

section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is designed 

to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured 

relative to the baseline model. 

4All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2013 dollars and, where appropriate, 

are discounted to 2014. 

5A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units 

(Btu). The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

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

petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section IV.H.2. 

A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units 

(Btu). 

6A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

7 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014) 

Reference case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

October 31, 2013. 

additional analyses, DOE believes 

further study is required before a 

cooking top test procedure can be 

established that produces test results 

which measure energy use during a 

representative average use cycle, is 

repeatable and reproducible, and is not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. For 

these reasons, this NOPR is limited to 

addressing energy conservation 

standards for conventional ovens. As 

discussed in section III.A, the proposed 

standards would cover conventional 

ovens, including conventional ovens 

that are a part of conventional ranges. 

DOE intends to complete the 

rulemaking process for conventional 

cooking tops once additional key data 

and information become available. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I–2 presents DOE’s evaluation 

of the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of residential 

conventional ovens, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and 

the simple payback period (PBP).3 The 

average LCC savings are positive for all 

product classes, and the PBP is less than 

the average lifetime of the equipment, 

which is estimated to be 15 years for 

electric and 17 years for gas ovens. 

TABLE I–2—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS (TSL 2) ON CONSUMERS OF RESIDENTIAL

CONVENTIONAL OVENS

Product class 

Average LCC 

savings * 

(2014$) 

Simple 

payback 

period 

(years) 

Electric Standard Oven, Free-standing ................................................................................................................... $15.18 4.0 

Electric Standard Oven, Built-in/Slide-in ................................................................................................................. 15.25 4.0 

Electric Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing ................................................................................................................ 14.10 0.9 

Electric Self-Clean Oven, Built-in/Slide-in ............................................................................................................... 14.20 0.9 

Gas Standard Oven, Free-Standing ........................................................................................................................ 289.73 1.7 

Gas Standard Oven, Built-in/Slide-in ....................................................................................................................... 289.77 1.7 

Gas Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing ...................................................................................................................... 282.80 1.2 

Gas Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-in .................................................................................................................... 282.85 1.2 

* Calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this notice. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2015 to 2048). Using a real discount 

rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that 

the industry net present value (INPV) 

for manufacturers of residential 

conventional ovens is $783.5 million in 

2014$. Under the proposed standards, 

DOE expects that manufacturers may 

lose up to 11.0 percent of their INPV, 

which is approximately $86.4 million in 

2014$. Additionally, based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

residential conventional ovens, DOE 

does not expect any plant closings or 

significant loss of employment. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed standards on manufacturers is 

described in section IV.J of this NOPR 

notice. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 4

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards would save a 

significant amount of energy. The 

lifetime energy savings from residential 

conventional oven products purchased 

in the 30-year period that begins in the 

assumed year of compliance with the 

proposed standards (2019–2048), 

relative to the base case without the 

proposed standards, amount to 0.71 

quadrillion Btu (quads).5 This 

represents a savings of 11.2 percent 

relative to the energy use of these 

products in the base case. 

The cumulative net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for 

ovens in residential conventional 

cooking products ranges from $4.7 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to 

$11.0 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate). This NPV expresses the estimated 

total value of future operating-cost 

savings minus the estimated increased 

product costs for products purchased in 

2019–2048. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings described 

above are estimated to result in 

cumulative emission reductions of 41.1 

million metric tons (Mt) 6 of carbon 

dioxide (CO2), 221.2 thousand tons of 

methane, 29.5 thousand tons of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), 69 thousand tons of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), 0.52 thousand 

tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.09 

tons of mercury (Hg).7 The cumulative 

reduction in CO2 emissions through 

2030 amounts to 7.5 Mt, which is 

equivalent to the emissions resulting 

from the annual electricity use of 0.7 

million homes. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33033 

8Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

9The values only include CO2 emissions, not CO2

equivalent emissions; other gases with global 

warming potential are not included. 

10 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

11To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, 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 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. 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. 

12The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 

the order of 30–95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). 

‘‘Correction to ‘‘Control of fossil-fuel particulate 

black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most 

effective method of slowing global warming.’’ ’’ J. 

Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105. 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent Federal 

interagency process.8 The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section 

IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate 

for each set of SCC values (see Table I– 

4), DOE estimates the present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reduction is 

between $0.3 billion and $4.1 billion, 

with a value of $1.3 billion using the 

central SCC case represented by $41.2/ 

t in 2015.9 DOE also estimates the 

present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reduction, is $0.1 billion at a 

7-percent discount rate and $0.2 billion 

at a 3-percent discount rate.10

Table I–3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from the proposed standards for 

residential conventional ovens. 

TABLE I–3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVENS * 

Category Present value 

(Billion 2014$) 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................. 5.0 

11.6 

7 

3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2.0/t case) ** ................................................................................. 0.3 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($41.2/t case) ** .................................................................................... 1.3 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($63.4/t case) ** .................................................................................... 2.1 2 .5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($121/t case) ** ..................................................................................... 4.1 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value † ........................................................................................................... 0.1 

0.2 

7 

3 

Total Benefits †† ........................................................................................................................................ 6.4 

13.2 

7 

3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ....................................................................................................................... 0.3 

0.6 

7 

3 

Total Net Benefits 

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value †† ................................................................................. 6.1 

12.6 

7 

3 

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with residential conventional ovens shipped in 2019–2048. These results include impacts to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2019–2048. The results account for the incremental variable and 

fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to any final standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. 

† The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate 

($40.5/t case). 

The benefits and costs of these 

proposed standards, for products sold in 

2019–2048, can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values. The 

annualized monetary values are the sum 

of (1) the annualized national economic 

value of the benefits from consumer 

operation of products that meet the new 

or amended standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy, minus increases in 

equipment purchase and installation 

costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV), and (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.11

Although DOE believes that the 

values of operating savings and CO2

emission reductions are both important, 

two issues are relevant. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions, 

whereas the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and CO2 savings are performed with 

different methods that use different time 

frames for analysis. The national 

operating cost savings is measured for 

the lifetime of residential conventional 

ovens shipped in 2019–2048. Because 

CO2 emissions have a very long 

residence time in the atmosphere,12 the 

SCC values in future years reflect future 

climate-related impacts resulting from 

the emission of CO2 that continue well 

beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards are 

shown in Table I–4. The results under 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33034 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

13http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/AEO/. 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2

reduction, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

average SCC series that has a value of 

$41.2/t in 2015, the cost of the proposed 

standards is $33.5 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $494 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, $74 

million in CO2 reductions, and $9 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$543 million per year. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs 

and the average SCC series that has a 

value of $41.2/t in 2015, the cost of the 

proposed standards is $33.1 million per 

year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $648 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $74 

million in CO2 reductions, and $13 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$701 million per year. 

TABLE I–4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL

CONVENTIONAL OVENS

Discount rate 

(million 2014$/year) 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate * 

High net 

benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................... 7% ......................................

3% ......................................

494 ..............

648 ..............

457 ..............

593 ..............

542. 

719. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.2/t case) * .............................. 5% ...................................... 21 ................ 20 ................ 24. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($41.2/t case) * .............................. 3% ...................................... 74 ................ 68 ................ 81. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($63.4/t case) * .............................. 2.5% ................................... 108 .............. 100 .............. 119. 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($121/t case) * ............................... 3% ...................................... 228 .............. 211 .............. 252. 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value† .................................................... 7% ......................................

3% ......................................

9.24 .............

13.43 ...........

8.66 .............

12.46 ...........

10.11. 

14.80. 

Total Benefits †† ................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range ............ 524 to 731 ... 485 to 677 ... 576 to 804. 

7% ...................................... 577 .............. 534 .............. 634. 

3% plus CO2 range ............ 682 to 889 ... 625 to 817 ... 758 to 986. 

3% ...................................... 734 .............. 674 .............. 815. 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ............................................... 7% ......................................

3% ......................................

34 ................

33 ................

34 ................

34 ................

33. 

33. 

Net Benefits 

Total †† ............................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ............ 491 to 697 ... 451 to 642 ... 543 to 771. 

7% ...................................... 543 .............. 499 .............. 601. 

3% plus CO2 range ............ 649 to 856 ... 592 to 783 ... 725 to 953. 

3% ...................................... 701 .............. 640 .............. 783. 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with residential conventional ovens shipped in 2019–2048. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 2014–2043. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to any final standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2015 13 Reference case, Low Estimate, and 

High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the 

Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate f in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained 

in section IV.F.1. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. 

† The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-percent discount rate 

($41.2/t case). In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the proposed standards is described 

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

notice. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. DOE further 

notes that products achieving these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for at least some, 

if not most, product classes covered by 

this proposal. Based on the analyses 

described above, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the benefits of the 

proposed standards to the Nation 

(energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

would outweigh the burdens (loss of 

INPV for manufacturers and LCC 

increases for some consumers). 

DOE also considered more-stringent 

energy efficiency levels as trial standard 

levels, and is considering them in this 

rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the potential 

burdens of the more-stringent energy 

efficiency levels would outweigh the 

projected benefits. Based on 

consideration of the public comments 

DOE receives in response to this notice 

and related information collected and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33035 

14 DOE’s regulations define kitchen ranges and 

ovens, or ‘‘cooking products’’, as one of the 

following classes: Conventional ranges, 

conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, 

microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges 

and other cooking products. (10 CFR 430.2) Based 

on this definition, in this notice, DOE interprets 

kitchen ranges and ovens to refer more generally to 

all types of cooking products including, for 

example, microwave ovens. 

analyzed during the course of this 

rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 

energy efficiency levels presented in 

this notice that are either higher or 

lower than the proposed standards, or 

some combination of level(s) that 

incorporate the proposed standards in 

part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposal, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for residential cooking 

products. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes residential 

cooking products 14, and specifically 

residential conventional ovens, that are 

the subject of this rulemaking. (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 rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)) (DOE 

notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the 

agency must periodically review its 

already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product. Under 

this requirement, the next review that 

DOE would need to conduct must occur 

no later than six years from the issuance 

of a final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product.) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the 

program. 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. 6293) 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. Id. The DOE 

test procedures for residential 

conventional cooking products 

currently appear at title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, 

subpart B, appendix I (Appendix I). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products. As 

indicated above, any new or amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 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)) Moreover, 

DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) 

For certain products, including 

residential conventional ovens, if no test 

procedure has been established for the 

product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

In deciding whether a 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 imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

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

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

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)) 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered product that has two or 

more subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of products for any group of covered 

products that have 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. 

6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33036 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

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

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in section 310(3) of EISA 

2007, any final rule 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 the 

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 residential conventional 

cooking products address standby mode 

and off mode energy use. In this 

rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate 

such energy use into any amended 

energy conservation standards it adopts 

in the final rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this proposed 

regulation pursuant to Executive Order 

13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). EO 

13563 is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

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 

Executive Order 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 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, DOE believes 

that the NOPR is consistent with these 

principles, including the requirement 

that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net 

benefits are maximized. Consistent with 

EO 13563, and the range of impacts 

analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy 

efficiency standards proposed herein by 

DOE achieve maximum net benefits. For 

further discussion of how this NOPR 

achieves maximum net benefits, see 

section V. 

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 residential 

cooking products to prohibit constant 

burning pilots for all gas cooking 

products (i.e., gas cooking products both 

with or without an electrical supply 

cord) manufactured on or after April 9, 

2012. 74 FR 16040, 16041–16044. DOE’s 

regulations, codified at 10 CFR 430.2, 

define conventional cooking tops, 

conventional ovens, and conventional 

ranges as classes of cooking products. 

As noted in the April 2009 Final Rule, 

DOE considered standards for 

conventional cooking tops and 

conventional ovens separately, and 

noted that any cooking top or oven 

standard would apply to the individual 

components of the conventional range. 

74 FR 16040, 16053. 

Based on DOE’s review of gas cooking 

products available on the market in the 

United States, DOE notes that there may 

be confusion regarding how the current 

standards apply to different pilot 

ignition systems. Specifically, DOE is 

aware of a gas range that is designed to 

heat and cook food based on the 

principle of heat storage. A low input 

rate burner continuously heats the 

cooking top surface and cast iron oven 

cavities, and maintains these 

components at a constant temperature. 

A secondary ‘‘pilot burner’’ is used to 

ignite the main burner and this pilot 

remains lit between cooking cycles as 

well as when the main burner is shut off 

for short periods of non-use. Although 

the secondary pilot may provide 

additional heating to the body of the 

range, its primary function is to ignite 

the main burner, and would thus be 

considered a constant burning pilot 

because it is a continuous gas flame 

used to ignite the gas at the main 

burner. It is the main burner that 

provides the primary source of heat for 

the cooking function of the range. 

In this NOPR, DOE is clarifying that 

a constant burning pilot in conventional 

cooking products is considered to be a 

continuous gas flame having the 

primary purpose to ignite the gas at the 

burner(s) that is (are) used to heat or 

cook food and which remains lit 

between cooking cycles. The design and 

configuration, including whether it 

incorporates any air premixing or 

whether it has a secondary heating 

function, does not exclude the device 

from consideration as constant burning 

pilot. 

DOE also notes that any newly 

adopted performance standards for 

conventional cooking products resulting 

from this current rulemaking would not 

affect the current prescriptive standards 

prohibiting constant burning pilots for 

all gas cooking products. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential 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. 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)(1)–(2)) 

DOE undertook the first cycle of these 

rulemakings and published a final rule 

on September 8, 1998, which found that 

no standards were justified for 

conventional electric cooking products 

at that time. In addition, partially due to 

the difficulty of conclusively 

demonstrating that elimination of 

standing pilots for conventional gas 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33037 

15As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

decided not to adopt energy conservation standards 

pertaining to the cooking efficiency of microwave 

ovens. DOE also published a final rule on June 17, 

2013 adopting energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 

36316. DOE is not considering energy conservation 

standards for microwave ovens as part of this 

rulemaking. 

16As discussed in section III.A, DOE is also 

tentatively planning to consider new energy 

conservation standards for gas cooking products 

with higher burner input rates, which were 

previously excluded from standards. 

17The term surface unit refers to burners for gas 

cooking tops, electric resistance heating elements 

for electric cooking tops, and inductive heating 

elements for induction cooking tops. 

18A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, STD No. 9 at 

p. 2’’ identifies a written comment (1) made by 

AHAM; (2) recorded in document number 9 that is 

filed in the docket of this energy conservation 

standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT– 

STD–0005) and maintained in the Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program; and (3) 

which appears on page 2 of document number 9. 

cooking products without an electrical 

supply cord was economically justified, 

DOE did not include amended 

standards for conventional gas cooking 

products in the final rule. 63 FR 48038. 

For the second cycle of rulemakings, 

DOE published the April 2009 Final 

Rule amending the energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking 

products to prohibit constant burning 

pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., 

gas cooking products both with or 

without an electrical supply cord) 

manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. 

DOE decided to not adopt energy 

conservation standards pertaining to the 

cooking efficiency of conventional 

electric cooking products because it 

determined that such standards would 

not be technologically feasible and 

economically justified at that time. 74 

FR 16040, 16041–16044.15

EPCA also requires that, not later than 

6 years after the issuance of a final rule 

establishing or amending a standard, 

DOE publish a NOPR proposing new 

standards or a notice of determination 

that the existing standards do not need 

to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

Based on this provision, DOE must 

publish by March 31, 2015, either a 

NOPR proposing new standards for 

conventional electric cooking products 

and/or amended standards for 

conventional gas cooking products 16 or 

a notice of determination that the 

existing standards do not need to be 

amended. 

On February 12, 2014, DOE published 

a request for information (RFI) notice 

(the February 2014 RFI) to initiate the 

mandatory review process imposed by 

EPCA. As part of the RFI, DOE sought 

input from the public to assist with its 

determination on whether new or 

amended standards pertaining to 

conventional cooking products are 

warranted. 79 FR 8337. In making this 

determination, DOE must evaluate 

whether new or amended standards 

would (1) yield a significant savings in 

energy use and (2) be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

III. General Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage 

As discussed in section II.A, 

6292(a)(10) of EPCA covers kitchen 

ranges and ovens, or ‘‘cooking 

products.’’ DOE’s regulations define 

‘‘cooking products’’ as consumer 

products that are used as the major 

household cooking appliances. They are 

designed to cook or heat different types 

of food by one or more of the following 

sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or 

microwave energy. Each product may 

consist of a horizontal cooking top 

containing one or more surface units 17

and/or one or more heating 

compartments. They must be one of the 

following classes: Conventional ranges, 

conventional cooking tops, conventional 

ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/

conventional ranges and other cooking 

products. (10 CFR 430.2) In this NOPR, 

DOE is considering energy conservation 

standards for certain residential 

conventional cooking products, namely, 

conventional ovens. 

DOE notes that conventional ranges 

are defined in 10 CFR 430.2 as a class 

of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a 

household cooking appliance, 

consisting of a conventional cooking top 

and one or more conventional ovens. In 

this rulemaking, DOE is not considering 

gas and electric conventional ranges as 

a distinct product category and is not 

basing its product classes on that 

category. Instead, DOE plans to consider 

energy conservation standards for 

conventional cooking tops and 

conventional ovens separately. Because 

ranges consist of both a cooking top and 

oven, any potential cooking top or oven 

standards would apply to the individual 

components of the range. DOE invites 

comment on its proposal to develop two 

distinct component standards under 

separate timetables, and whether issues 

of product design and development, 

consumer utility, and more broadly, 

cumulative regulatory burden concerns 

that could arise as a result of its 

proposal (see sections IV.J and VII.E). 

DOE anticipates issuing a NOPR for 

energy conservation standards for 

cooktops in the next year. In this NOPR, 

DOE is proposing to clarify in the 

definitions of conventional cooking tops 

and conventional ovens, in 10 CFR 

430.2, that these include the individual 

cooking top or oven portion of a 

conventional range. 

As part of the most recent standards 

rulemaking for conventional cooking 

products, DOE decided to exclude 

residential conventional gas cooking 

products with higher burner input rates, 

including products marketed as 

‘‘commercial-style’’ or ‘‘professionalstyle,’’ from consideration of energy 

conservation standards due to a lack of 

available data for determining efficiency 

characteristics of those products. DOE 

considers these products to be gas 

cooking tops with burner input rates 

greater than 14,000 British thermal units 

(Btu)/hour (h) and gas ovens with 

burner input rates greater than 22,500 

Btu/h. 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr. 8, 

2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444–64445 (Nov. 

15, 2007). DOE also stated that the 

current DOE cooking products test 

procedures may not adequately measure 

performance of gas cooking tops and 

ovens with higher burner input rates. 72 

FR 64432, 64444–64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). 

As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE 

stated that it tentatively planned to 

consider energy conservation standards 

for all residential conventional cooking 

products, including gas cooking 

products with higher burner input rates. 

In addition, DOE stated that it may 

consider developing test procedures for 

these products and determine whether 

separate product classes are warranted. 

79 FR 8337, 8340 (Feb. 12, 2014). 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) and Whirlpool 

Corporation (Whirlpool) commented 

that because there is no test procedure 

to test commercial-style products, they 

cannot effectively comment on how 

these products should be treated in a 

standards rulemaking, nor can DOE 

effectively evaluate their energy use. 

(AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2; 18 Whirlpool, 

STD No. 13 at p. 2) AHAM added that 

nothing has changed since DOE 

determined in the April 2009 Final Rule 

that it lacks efficiency data to determine 

whether commercial-style cooking 

products should be excluded from the 

rulemaking, and thus, DOE cannot make 

a tentative conclusion to consider 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial-style products. (AHAM, 

STD No. 9 at pp. 2–3) In response to the 

December 2014 TP SNOPR, Sub Zero 

Group, Inc. (Sub Zero) stated that DOE’s 

conclusion that the existing test 

procedure in Appendix I should be used 

to test ovens with high input rates is 

incorrect. Sub Zero commented that, 

due to the lack of data, complexity, and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33038 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19A notation in the form ‘‘Sub Zero, TP No. 20 

at p. 3’’ identifies a written comment (1) made by 

Sub Zero; (2) recorded in document number 20 that 

is filed in the docket of the concurrent cooking 

products test procedures rulemaking (Docket No. 

EERE–2012–BT–TP–0013) and maintained in the 

Resource Room of the Building Technologies 

Program; and (3) which appears on page 3 of 

document number 20. 

small potential for energy savings, DOE 

should exempt commercial-style or 

‘‘high performance’’ products from 

coverage. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 3 19) 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(PG&E), Southern California Gas 

Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and 

Electric (SDG&E), and Southern 

California Edison (SCE) (collectively, 

the California investor-owned utilities 

(IOUs)) supported DOE’s decision to 

consider standards for professional-style 

gas cooking products and commented 

that DOE should refer to American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

Standard Z83.11–2006/CSA Standard 

1.8–2006 (R2011), ‘‘Gas Food Service 

Equipment,’’ when developing a 

definition for these products. (California 

IOUs, STD No. 11 at p. 1) 

As discussed in section III.B, DOE 

proposed to amend the conventional 

cooking top test procedure in Appendix 

I to, among other things, measure the 

energy use of gas cooking tops with high 

burner input rates and to clarify that the 

existing conventional oven test 

procedure is appropriate for ovens with 

high burner input rates, including 

products marketed as commercial-style. 

See 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE 

notes that the current definitions for 

‘‘conventional cooking top,’’ 

‘‘conventional oven,’’ and 

‘‘conventional range’’ in 10 CFR 430.2 

already cover conventional gas cooking 

products with higher burner input rates, 

as these products are household cooking 

appliances with surface units or 

compartments intended for the cooking 

or heating of food by means of a gas 

flame. As a result, DOE is proposing 

energy conservation standards for all 

residential conventional cooking 

products, including gas cooking 

products with higher burner input rates. 

As discussed in section IV.A.2, DOE is 

not considering establishing a separate 

product class for gas cooking products 

with higher burner input rates that are 

marketed as ‘‘commercial-style’’ and, as 

a result, DOE is not proposing separate 

definitions for these products. 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) commented that DOE should 

separately define commercial and 

residential gas cooking products. NRDC 

noted that because of the availability of 

residential gas cooking tops with higher 

burner input rates previously associated 

with commercial use, these burner types 

are not what define commercial units. 

NRDC stated that the definitions should 

be based on more fundamental 

distinctions between commercial and 

residential products, such as 

configuration of the burners on the 

cooking top, number of burners, or 

number of high-input rate burners. 

(NRDC, STD No. 12 at p. 2) As part of 

this rulemaking, DOE is considering 

energy conservation standards for 

residential conventional cooking 

products. As discussed above, this 

includes residential conventional gas 

cooking products with high burner 

input rates, including those marketed as 

commercial-style. For these products, 

DOE tentatively concludes that the 

existing definitions for conventional 

cooking top, conventional oven, and 

conventional range accurately describe 

the products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. In addition, DOE clarifies 

that the proposed scope of coverage for 

this rulemaking relates only to 

consumer products. Thus, this rule 

applies to those residential conventional 

cooking products that are of a type 

which, to any significant extent, are 

distributed into commerce for personal 

use or consumption. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6291(1)). These consumer products can 

be distinguished from commercial/

industrial equipment, which are of a 

type not sold for consumer use. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)) Thus, DOE is not 

proposing to define commercial cooking 

products as part of this rulemaking. 

DOE notes that the test procedures for 

conventional ranges, cooking tops, and 

ovens found at Appendix I do not 

address all possible types of combined 

cooking products (i.e., residential 

products that combine a conventional 

cooking product with other appliance 

functionality, which may or may not 

include another cooking product), such 

as microwave/conventional ovens or 

any other products that may combine a 

conventional cooking product with 

other appliance functionality that is not 

a conventional cooking product. DOE 

stated in the February 2014 RFI that 

because test procedures are not 

available addressing products that 

combine a conventional cooking 

product with other appliance 

functionality that is not a conventional 

cooking product (e.g., microwave/

conventional ovens), DOE is not 

considering energy conservation 

standards for such products at this time. 

79 FR 8337, 8340 (Feb. 12, 2014). 

AHAM and Whirlpool agreed with 

DOE’s tentative determination to not 

consider standards for combined 

cooking products. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at 

p. 3; Whirlpool STD No. 13 at p. 2) 

AHAM stated that combined products 

are too diverse and probably do not 

occupy enough of the market to justify 

coverage by DOE. AHAM stated that 

DOE has not provided sufficient 

analysis on each of these products to 

justify their coverage, nor has DOE 

provided adequate definitions. Thus, 

AHAM continues to oppose the 

inclusion of combined products in the 

scope of covered products in the 

conventional cooking products 

rulemakings. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 

3) In the absence of comments opposing 

this determination and for the reasons 

discussed above, DOE is not considering 

energy conservation standards in this 

NOPR for products that may combine a 

conventional cooking product with 

other appliance functionality that is not 

a conventional cooking product. 

B. Further Rulemaking To Consider 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Conventional Cooking Tops 

As part of this rulemaking, DOE 

intends only to address energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

ovens, including conventional ovens 

that are a part of conventional ranges. In 

response to the concurrent cooking 

products test procedure proposed 

rulemaking, DOE received a number of 

comments from interested parties that 

presented information and arguments 

for deferring the rulemaking process to 

consider standards for conventional 

cooking tops until a representative, 

repeatable, and reproducible test 

procedure could be developed. DOE 

also conducted a series of manufacturer 

interviews and performed additional 

testing in order to confirm stakeholder 

comments that additional study was 

warranted before establishing both a test 

procedure and amended standards for 

conventional cooking tops. These 

comments and DOE’s response are 

discussed below. 

In the January 2013 TP NOPR, DOE 

proposed amendments to the cooking 

products test procedure in Appendix I 

to subpart B of Title 10 of the CFR part 

430 that would allow for testing the 

active mode energy consumption of 

induction cooking products; i.e., 

conventional cooking tops and ranges 

equipped with induction heating 

technology for one or more surface units 

on the cooking top. DOE proposed to 

incorporate induction cooking tops by 

amending the definition of 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to include 

induction heating technology. 

Furthermore, DOE proposed to require 

for all cooking tops the use of test 

equipment compatible with induction 

technology. Specifically, DOE proposed 

to replace the solid aluminum test 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33039 

blocks currently specified in the test 

procedure for cooking tops with hybrid 

test blocks comprising two separate 

pieces: An aluminum body and a 

stainless steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 

(Jan. 30, 2013). 

AHAM commented that DOE should 

rely on the finalized version of the test 

procedure (i.e., the October 2012 TP 

Final Rule) and not a proposed test 

procedure when evaluating energy 

conservation standards, particularly 

given the significant opposing 

comments that question the validity of 

the proposed test procedure for cooking 

tops (as discussed in AHAM’s 

comments on the January 2013 TP 

NOPR). Accordingly, AHAM stated that 

DOE should address AHAM’s and other 

stakeholder comments regarding 

induction cooking and finalize 

amendments to the test procedure 

before using those amendments to 

conduct any analysis for the standards 

rulemaking, or else proceed without 

addressing induction cooking products 

in this round of standards rulemaking. 

(AHAM, STD No. 9 at pp. 3–4, 6, 7) 

AHAM and Whirlpool commented 

that a test procedure should be 

developed to address commercial-style 

cooking products if DOE plans to 

evaluate them in a standards analysis. 

(AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2; Whirlpool, 

STD No. 13 at p. 1) AHAM also 

commented that DOE should either 

proceed without addressing 

commercial-style products as it did for 

the April 2009 Final Rule or delay the 

rulemaking analysis until there is a 

finalized test procedure that can 

measure commercial-style products. 

(AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 4, 6, 7) AHAM 

added that it cannot provide data 

regarding the differences between 

residential-style and commercial-style 

gas cooking products without a test 

procedure to measure higher input rated 

burners. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 7) The 

California IOUs supported amending the 

test procedure to measure the energy 

use of residential conventional gas 

cooking products with higher burner 

input rates. (California IOUs, STD No. 

11 at p. 2) 

In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, 

DOE modified its proposal from the 

January 2013 TP NOPR to specify 

different test equipment that would 

allow for measuring the energy 

efficiency of induction cooking tops, 

and would include an additional test 

block size for electric surface units with 

large diameters (both induction and 

electric resistance). 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 

2014). In addition, DOE proposed 

methods to test non-circular electric 

surface units, electric surface units with 

flexible concentric cooking zones, and 

full-surface induction cooking tops. Id. 

In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE 

also proposed amendments to add a 

larger test block size to test gas cooking 

top burners with higher input rates. Id. 

AHAM formally requested an 

extension of the comment period for the 

December 2014 TP SNOPR, citing the 

difficulty the members had procuring 

the specified hybrid test block materials, 

and noting that many manufacturers 

were not able to properly assess the new 

specifications, testing variation, 

repeatability, and reproducibility of the 

proposed test procedure before the 

comment period closed. (AHAM, TP No. 

14 at p. 1) AHAM also expressed 

concern with DOE’s choice to pursue an 

accelerated rulemaking schedule for 

cooking products, stating that DOE’s 

deadlines did not allow for a thorough 

technical examination. AHAM believes 

DOE has not conducted adequate 

outreach to manufacturers, has not been 

sufficiently transparent in its data 

collection and analysis, and has failed 

to adhere to its own Process 

Improvement Rule, which calls for all of 

the above. AHAM asked DOE to conduct 

more substantive dialogue with 

stakeholders that would result in more 

in-depth comments on the test 

procedure SNOPR and advised DOE that 

the cooking top test procedure as 

proposed in the December 2014 TP 

SNOPR may result in technical 

problems. (AHAM, TP No. 18 at pp. 1– 

2) 

Both the BSH Home Appliances 

Corporation (BSH) and General Electric 

Appliances (GE) confirmed that delays 

associated with acquiring the hybrid test 

block materials meant they needed 

additional time to evaluate DOE’s 

proposed cooking top test procedure. 

(BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 2; GE, TP No. 17 

at p. 1) BSH commented that the 

proposed hybrid test block method fails 

to cover several aspects which are 

necessary to enhance the reproducibility 

of measuring cooking top energy 

consumption, such as test load sizing 

and positioning, and recommended 

DOE take into account important 

specifications which are already fixed in 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) Standard 60350–2 

Edition 2, ‘‘Household electric 

appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for 

measuring performance’’ (IEC Standard 

60350–2). (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 1) 

Further, both manufacturers and AHAM 

suggested that DOE specify additional 

test block diameters because the test 

block sizes proposed by DOE do not 

adequately reflect the surface unit sizes 

currently available on the market. (BSH, 

TP No. 16 at p. 5; GE, TP No. 17 at p 

2; AHAM, TP No. 18 at p. 2) 

Stakeholders also expressed a 

significant number of concerns with the 

use of thermal grease. GE noted that 

since receiving DOE’s proposal, it has 

not been able to replicate the DOE test 

results using the methods described. 

(GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2) Specifically, GE 

observed that the aluminum body slid 

off the stainless steel base during the 

test, that the thermal grease dried out, 

and that the amount of grease between 

the blocks changed from one test to 

another. (GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2) Both 

manufacturers and AHAM requested 

that DOE specify an operating 

temperature range for the thermal grease 

as well as an application thickness to 

address these issues, but also noted that 

the thermal conductivity and viscosity 

of the grease may still change over time 

or after repeated use at high 

temperatures. (BSH, TP No. 16 at p. 11; 

GE, TP No. 17 at p. 2; AHAM, TP No. 

18 at p. 3) GE further commented that 

the variation introduced by the hybrid 

test block due to block construction, 

flatness, thermal grease, and inadequate 

sizing, may be small sources of variation 

individually, but collectively, these 

issues result in a test method that is 

incapable of being able to reliably 

discern efficiency differences between 

similar products, alternate technology 

options, and product classes. Thus, GE 

believes the test method proposed for 

conventional cooking tops in the 

December 2014 TP SNOPR results in too 

much variability to serve as the basis for 

establishing a standard. (GE, TP No. 17 

at p. 3) 

The California IOUs also stated that 

they prefer an alternative to the hybrid 

test block and recommended that DOE 

require water-heating test methods to 

measure the cooking efficiency of 

conventional cooking tops. Specifically, 

the California IOUs requested that DOE 

align the residential cooking product 

test methods with existing industry test 

procedures, such as ASTM F1521–12 

and IEC Standard 60350–2. (California 

IOUs, TP No. 19 at p. 1) The California 

IOUs commented that they plan to 

conduct additional testing to better 

characterize the differences between the 

water-heating and hybrid test block test 

procedures, and will provide these 

results to DOE. According to the 

California IOUs, the differences in test 

procedure standard deviation between 

the hybrid test block and water-heating 

test method as presented in the 

December 2014 TP SNOPR did not 

sufficiently show that the hybrid test 

block method is more repeatable than a 

water-heating method. (California IOUs, 

TP No. 19 at p. 2) Additionally, the 

California IOUs believe cooking 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33040 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

efficiencies derived using a waterheating test method are more 

representative of the actual cooking 

performance of cooking tops as opposed 

to a test procedure using hybrid test 

blocks since many different foods 

prepared on cooktops will have 

relatively high liquid content. 

(California IOUs, TP No. 19 at p. 1) 

In February and March of 2015, DOE 

conducted a series of interviews with 

manufacturers of conventional cooking 

products, representing the majority of 

the U.S. market, regarding the proposed 

cooking top test procedure. 

Manufacturers agreed that the hybrid 

test block method, as proposed, 

presented many issues which had not 

yet been addressed, and which left the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test procedure in question. These 

concerns were similar to those 

expressed in written comments but 

came from a larger group of contributing 

manufacturers and included: 

• Difficulty obtaining the hybrid test 

block materials; 

• Difficulty obtaining and applying 

the thermal grease without more 

detailed specifications (i.e., thermal 

conductivity alone was not sufficient to 

identify a grease that performed 

according to DOE’s descriptions in the 

SNOPR); 

• Difficulty testing induction cooking 

tops that use different programming 

techniques to prevent overheating (some 

manufacturers still observed that power 

to the heating elements cut off 

prematurely during testing with the 

hybrid test block, despite adding 

thermal grease); and 

• The need for larger test block sizes 

to test electric surface units having 12- 

inch and 13-inch diameters and gas 

surface units with high input rates. 

Interviewed manufacturers that 

produce and sell products in Europe 

overwhelmingly supported the use of 

water-heating test method and 

harmonization with IEC Standard 

60350–2 for measuring the energy 

consumption of electric cooking tops. 

These manufacturers noted that the 

benefits of pursuing a test method 

similar to the IEC water-heating method 

include compatibility with all electric 

cooking top types, additional cookware 

diameters to account for the variety of 

surface unit sizes on the market, and the 

test load’s ability to represent a realworld cooking top load. 

For these reasons, DOE has decided to 

continue the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for conventional 

ovens but to defer its decision regarding 

adoption of energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking tops 

until a representative, repeatable and 

reproducible test method for cooking 

tops is finalized. At such time, DOE will 

consider further modifications to DOE’s 

cooking top active mode test procedure 

and, on the basis of such an amended 

test procedure, DOE will analyze 

potential energy conservation standards 

for cooking top energy consumption. 

DOE invites data and information that 

will allow it to further conduct the 

analysis of cooking tops, particularly 

when using a water-heating method to 

evaluate energy consumption. DOE 

anticipates issuing additional notices for 

cooking top test procedures and 

standards in order to obtain public 

input on DOE’s updated proposals. As 

part of these notices, DOE will carefully 

consider and address any cooking toprelated comments on the December 2014 

TP SNOPR and the February 2014 RFI 

that remain relevant. 

C. Test Procedure 

DOE’s test procedures for 

conventional ranges, conventional 

cooking tops, conventional ovens, and 

microwave ovens are codified at 

appendix I to subpart B of Title 10 of the 

CFR part 430. 

DOE established the test procedures 

in a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 

20120–20128. DOE revised its test 

procedures for cooking products to more 

accurately measure their efficiency and 

energy use, and published the revisions 

as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 

(Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure 

amendments included: (1) A reduction 

in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) 

a reduction in the number of Self-Clean 

oven cycles per year; and (3) 

incorporation of portions of IEC 

Standard 705–1988, ‘‘Methods for 

measuring the performance of 

microwave ovens for household and 

similar purposes,’’ and Amendment 2– 

1993 for the testing of microwave ovens. 

Id. The test procedures for conventional 

cooking products establish provisions 

for determining estimated annual 

operating cost, cooking efficiency 

(defined as the ratio of cooking energy 

output to cooking energy input), and 

energy factor (defined as the ratio of 

annual useful cooking energy output to 

total annual energy input). 10 CFR 

430.23(i); Appendix I. 

DOE subsequently conducted a 

rulemaking to address standby and off 

mode energy consumption, as well as 

certain active mode (i.e., fan-only mode) 

testing provisions, for residential 

conventional cooking products. DOE 

published a final rule on October 31, 

2012 (77 FR 65942, the October 2012 TP 

Final Rule), adopting standby and off 

mode provisions that satisfy the EPCA 

requirement that DOE include measures 

of standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption in its test procedures for 

residential products, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, 

DOE proposed modifications to the test 

block used to evaluate conventional 

cooking top energy consumption. As 

discussed in section III.B, DOE plans to 

consider further modifications to DOE’s 

cooking top active mode test procedure 

in a future rulemaking. In the December 

2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed to 

incorporate methods for measuring 

conventional oven volume, clarified that 

the existing oven test block must be 

used to test all ovens regardless of input 

rate, and provided a method to measure 

the energy consumption and efficiency 

of conventional ovens equipped with an 

oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 

2014). DOE is proposing energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

ovens in this NOPR based on these 

proposals in the December 2014 TP 

SNOPR. DOE intends to update the 

standards rulemaking analyses based on 

any final amendments related to ovens 

developed as part of the concurrent test 

procedure rulemaking. DOE recognizes 

that interested parties need sufficient 

time to evaluate the proposed energy 

conservation standards using the final 

test procedure for conventional ovens. 

DOE considers the stated energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

process to provide sufficient time to 

submit meaningful comments based on 

a finalized DOE conventional oven test 

procedure. 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33041 

20 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

21For this NOPR, DOE used AEO 2014. Available 

at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/AEO/. 

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; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv). Section IV.B of this 

notice discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for residential 

conventional ovens, particularly the 

designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) 

in this rulemaking. For further details 

on the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR 

Technical Support Document (TSD). 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

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

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

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

efficiency for residential conventional 

ovens, using the design parameters for 

the most efficient products available on 

the market or in working prototypes, 

and information from the previous 

rulemaking. The max-tech levels that 

DOE determined for this rulemaking are 

described in section IV.C.3 of this 

proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

E. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with new and 

amended standards (2019 to 2048).20

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of 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 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of new and amended efficiency 

standards, and it considers market 

forces and policies that affect demand 

for more efficient products. 

DOE uses its national impact analysis 

(NIA) spreadsheet models to estimate 

energy savings from potential new and 

amended standards. The NIA 

spreadsheet model (described in section 

IV.H of this notice) calculates energy 

savings in site energy, which is the 

energy directly consumed by products 

at the locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE calculates 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 

electricity, natural gas, and oil, DOE 

also calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) 

energy savings. As discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment, 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 efficiency standards. 76 FR 

51281 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 

FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

To calculate primary energy savings, 

DOE derives annual conversion factors 

from the model used to prepare the 

Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) most recent Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO).21 For FFC energy 

savings, 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, see section IV.H.2. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt 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)) 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that 

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in the context of EPCA to be 

savings that were not ‘‘genuinely 

trivial.’’ The energy savings for the 

proposed standards (presented in 

section IV.H.2) are nontrivial, and, 

therefore, DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 

section 325 of EPCA. 

F. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

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)) The following sections 

discuss how DOE has addressed each of 

those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as 

discussed in section IV.J. 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 industrywide impacts analyzed include industry 

net present value (INPV), which values 

the industry on the basis of expected 

future cash flows; cash flows by year; 

changes in revenue and income; and 

other measures of impact, as 

appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 

reports the impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the economic impacts 

applicable to a particular rulemaking. 

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

affected disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33042 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

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. For 

its analysis, DOE assumes that 

consumers will purchase the covered 

products in the first year of compliance 

with amended standards. 

The LCC savings for the considered 

efficiency levels are calculated relative 

to a base case that reflects projected 

market trends in the absence of 

amended standards. DOE identifies the 

percentage of consumers estimated to 

receive LCC savings or experience an 

LCC increase, in addition to the average 

LCC savings associated with a particular 

standard level. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analysis is discussed in further detail in 

section IV.F. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

As discussed in section IV.H.2, DOE 

uses spreadsheet models to project 

national energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates potential standards that 

would not lessen the utility or 

performance of the considered products. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on 

data available to DOE, the standards 

proposed in this notice would not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

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

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

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 

60days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

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

transmit a copy of this proposed rule to 

the Attorney General with a request that 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide 

its determination on this issue. DOE 

will publish and respond to the 

Attorney General’s determination in the 

final rule. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy 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 new or amended 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. 

New or amended standards also 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 standards may affect these 

emissions, as discussed in section IV.K. 

DOE reports the emissions impacts from 

each TSL it considered in section IV.K 

of this notice. DOE also estimates the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section IV.L. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent 

interested parties submit any relevant 

information regarding economic 

justification that does not fit into the 

other categories described above, DOE 

could consider such information under 

‘‘other factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

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

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

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

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F.11 of this 

proposed rule. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the proposed 

standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet 

that calculates the LCC and PBP of 

potential energy conservation standards. 

The national impacts analysis uses a 

spreadsheet set that provides shipments 

forecasts and calculates national energy 

savings and net present value resulting 

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 at the Web site for this 

rulemaking: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=85. 

Additionally, DOE used output from the 

EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 

2014, a widely known energy forecast 

for the United States, for the emissions 

and utility impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

For the market and technology 

assessment, DOE develops information 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33043 

22The technical support document from the 

previous residential cooking products standards 

rulemaking is available at: http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2006-STD-0127-0097. 

23However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, 

while marketed as commercial- or professional-style 

and having multiple surface units with high input 

rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input 

rate above 22,500 Btu/h. 

that provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, and market 

characteristics. This activity includes 

both quantitative and qualitative 

assessments, based primarily on 

publicly available information. Chapter 

3 of the NOPR TSD contains additional 

discussion of the market and technology 

assessment. 

2. Product Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justifies a different 

standard. In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

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

During the previous energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

cooking products, DOE evaluated 

product classes for conventional ovens 

based on energy source (i.e., gas or 

electric). These distinctions initially 

yielded two conventional oven product 

classes: (1) Gas ovens; and (2) electric 

ovens. DOE later determined that the 

type of oven-cleaning system is a utility 

feature that affects performance. DOE 

found that standard ovens and ovens 

using a catalytic continuous-cleaning 

process use roughly the same amount of 

energy. On the other hand, Self-Clean 

ovens use a pyrolytic process that 

provides enhanced consumer utility 

with lower overall energy consumption 

as compared to either standard or 

catalytically lined ovens. DOE defined 

the following product classes in the TSD 

for the April 2009 Final Rule (2009 

TSD) 22 for conventional ovens: 

• Electric ovens—standard oven with 

or without a catalytic line; 

• Electric ovens—self-clean oven; 

• Gas ovens—standard oven with or 

without a catalytic line; and 

• Gas ovens—self-clean oven. 

As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE 

stated that it tentatively plans to 

maintain the product classes for 

conventional ovens from the previous 

standards rulemaking, as presented 

above. DOE stated that it may consider 

whether separate product classes are 

warranted for conventional gas ovens 

with higher burner input rates. 79 FR 

8337, 8341–8342 (Feb. 12, 2014). 

Based on DOE’s review of gas 

conventional ovens and ranges available 

on the U.S. market, and based on 

manufacturer interviews and testing 

conducted as part of the engineering 

analysis described in section IV.C and 

Chapter 5 of the TSD, DOE notes that 

the self-cleaning function of the selfclean oven may employ methods other 

than a high temperature pyrolytic cycle 

to perform the cleaning action. 

Specifically, DOE is aware of a type of 

self-cleaning oven that uses a 

proprietary oven coating and water to 

perform a self-clean cycle with a shorter 

duration and at a significantly lower 

temperature setting. The self-cleaning 

cycle for these ovens, unlike 

catalytically-lined standard ovens that 

provide continuous cleaning during 

normal baking, still have a separate selfcleaning mode that is user-selectable 

and must be tested separately. In this 

NOPR, DOE is clarifying that a selfclean electric or gas conventional 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. 

With regard to commercial-style 

products, AHAM commented that 

without a definition or test procedure 

for such products, neither AHAM nor 

DOE can determine at this stage whether 

these products would warrant a separate 

product class. AHAM noted that DOE 

should first develop a test procedure for 

these products to allow for analysis of 

them. (AHAM, No. 9 at p. 12) 

Based on DOE’s review of the 

residential conventional gas ovens 

available on the market, residential-style 

gas ovens typically have an input rate of 

16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h whereas 

residential gas ovens marketed as 

commercial-style typically have burner 

input rates ranging from 22,500 to 

30,000 Btu/h.23 Additional review of 

both the residential-style and 

commercial-style gas oven cavities 

indicated that there is significant 

overlap in oven cavity volume between 

the two oven types. Standard 

residential-style gas oven cavities range 

from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet (ft3) in volume 

and gas ovens marketed as commercialstyle have cavity volumes ranging from 

3.0 to 6.0 ft3. Sixty percent of the 

commercial-style models surveyed had 

cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft3

while fifty percent of the standard 

models had cavity volumes between 4.0 

and 5.0 ft3. The primary differentiating 

factor between the two oven types was 

burner input rate, which is greater than 

22,500 Btu/h for commercial-style gas 

ovens. 

As discussed in the December 2014 

TP SNOPR, DOE determined that the 

test load for ovens as specified in the 

existing DOE test procedure in 

Appendix I is appropriate for gas ovens 

with burner input rates greater than 

22,500 Btu/h. 79 FR at 71915–71916. As 

a result, DOE conducted testing for this 

NOPR to determine whether 

conventional gas ovens with higher 

burner input rates warrant establishing 

a separate product class. DOE evaluated 

the cooking efficiency of the eight 

conventional gas ovens listed in Table 

IV–1. Five of these ovens had burners 

rated at 18,000 Btu/h or less and the 

remaining three had burner input rates 

ranging from 27,000 Btu/h to 30,000 

Btu/h. 

TABLE IV–1—PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF GAS OVEN TEST SAMPLE

Test unit 

No. Type Installation configuration 

Burner 

input rate 

(Btu/h) 

Cavity 

volume 

(cubic feet 

(ft3)) 

Measured 

cooking 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Normalized 

cooking 

efficiency ** 

(percent) 

1 ............... Standard .................... Freestanding ............. 18,000 4.8 6.6 7.0 

2 ............... Standard .................... Freestanding ............. 18,000 4.8 6.0 6.3 

3 ............... Self-Clean .................. Freestanding ............. 18,000 5.0 7.6 8.1 

4 ............... Standard .................... Freestanding ............. 16,500 4.4 6.2 6.2 

5 ............... Self-Clean .................. Built-in ....................... 13,000 2.8 9.4 8.3 

6 ............... Standard * .................. Freestanding ............. 28,000 5.3 4.3 5.1 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33044 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV–1—PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF GAS OVEN TEST SAMPLE—Continued 

Test unit 

No. Type Installation configuration 

Burner 

input rate 

(Btu/h) 

Cavity 

volume 

(cubic feet 

(ft3)) 

Measured 

cooking 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Normalized 

cooking 

efficiency ** 

(percent) 

7 ............... Standard * .................. Slide-in ...................... 27,000 4.4 5.2 5.2 

8 ............... Standard * .................. Freestanding ............. 30,000 5.4 3.9 4.7 

* These products are marketed as commercial-style gas ovens. 

** Measured cooking efficiency normalized to a fixed cavity volume of 4.3 cubic feet. 

The measured cooking efficiencies for 

ovens with burner input rates above 

22,500 Btu/h were lower than for ovens 

with ratings below 22,500 Btu/h, even 

after normalizing cooking efficiency to a 

fixed cavity volume. However, DOE also 

noted that the conventional gas ovens 

with higher burner input rates in DOE’s 

test sample were marketed as 

commercial-style and had greater total 

thermal mass, including heavier racks 

and thicker cavity walls, even after 

normalizing for cavity volume. To 

determine whether the lower measured 

efficiency of these ovens was due to the 

higher input rate burners, DOE isolated 

the heating element from the thermal 

mass of the oven by placing 1-inch thick 

insulation on all surfaces inside the 

oven cavity, except for the bottom of the 

cavity where the burner was located, 

and ran tests according to the DOE test 

procedure. By adding insulation, heat 

transfer to the cavity walls was 

minimized and retained in the cavity to 

heat the test block. DOE selected test 

unit 3 and test unit 8 in Table IV–1 for 

test because of the similarity in cavity 

volume, their difference in efficiency, 

and their differing input rate (18,000 

Btu/h and 30,000 Btu/h, respectively). 

Figure IV.1 displays the resulting test 

block temperature increase as a function 

of test time, measured with and without 

insulation lining the interior oven cavity 

walls. 

Without the added insulation inside 

the oven cavity, the temperature rise in 

the test block was similar for each oven, 

despite the large difference in burner 

input rate. In contrast, by adding 

insulation inside the cavity, the test 

block temperature in the 30,000 Btu/h 

oven increased at a faster rate than in 

the 18,000 Btu/h oven. This suggests 

that much of the energy input to the 

30,000 Btu/h oven goes to heating the 

added mass of the cavity, rather than the 

test load, resulting in relatively lower 

measured efficiency. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33045 

24Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not 

user-selectable in which a fan circulates air 

internally or externally to the cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the heating 

function. 

DOE also investigated the time it took 

each oven in the test sample to heat the 

test load to a final test temperature of 

234 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) above its 

initial temperature, specified in the DOE 

test procedure in Appendix I. As shown 

in Table IV–2, gas ovens with burner 

input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h do 

not heat the test load significantly faster 

than the ovens with lower burner input 

rates, and two out of the three units 

with the higher burner input rates took 

longer than the average time to heat the 

test load. Therefore, DOE preliminarily 

concludes that there is no unique utility 

associated with faster cook times that is 

provided by gas ovens with burner 

input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 

TABLE IV–2—GAS OVEN TEST TIMES

Unit Type Burner input rate 

(Btu/h) 

Bake time to 

reach 234 °F 

above initial temp 

(min) 

Difference in 

time from avg 

(min) 

1 ........................................ Standard ..................................................................... 18,000 43.6 ¥3.8 

2 ........................................ Standard ..................................................................... 18,000 43.6 ¥3.8 

3 ........................................ Self-Clean ................................................................... 18,000 47.2 ¥0.2 

4 ........................................ Standard ..................................................................... 16,500 44.9 ¥2.5 

5 ........................................ Self-Clean ................................................................... 13,000 48.9 1.5 

6 ........................................ Standard * ................................................................... 28,000 48.9 1.5 

7 ........................................ Standard * ................................................................... 27,000 45.4 ¥2.0 

8 ........................................ Standard * ................................................................... 30,000 57.2 9.8 

Average ..................... ..................................................................................... .............................. 47.4 ..............................

* Test units 6, 7, and 8 are marketed as commercial-style ovens. 

In response to the December 2014 TP 

SNOPR, Sub Zero commented that 

categorizing all ovens under the term 

conventional cooking suggests that DOE 

is unaware of the significant positive 

differences provided to a subset of 

consumers by commercial-style 

products. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 2) 

If standards are to be proposed, Sub 

Zero requested that the product classes 

be significantly expanded in number to 

recognize the unique and important 

utility and performance attributes 

associated with ‘‘high performance’’ 

cooking products. (Sub Zero, TP No. 20 

at p. 3) Sub Zero suggested that these 

products offer residential consumers 

performance similar to that found in 

restaurants, at a safety and convenience 

level that is acceptable for residential 

use. Commercial-style ovens would thus 

include gas ranges in widths up to 60 

inches, gas ovens up to 36 inches wide 

with high output infrared broilers and 

convection fans, dual fuel ranges 

combining gas cooktops with sealed 

burners and large, electric self-cleaning 

convection ovens that use hidden bake 

elements and multiple heating circuits 

for added control, as well as separate 

convection elements or multiple 

convection fans. Sub Zero believes that 

analysis based largely on the traditional 

30-inch wide gas or electric range 

cannot adequately evaluate the very 

different performance attributes offered 

by high performance products which are 

essential to consumer utility. (Sub Zero, 

TP No. 20 at p. 2) 

In selecting a test sample to support 

DOE’s engineering analysis, discussed 

in section IV.C.2 and Chapter 5 of the 

TSD, DOE attempts to capture a wide 

range of products having features that 

may result in the determination of 

additional product classes. DOE 

included two commercial-style gas 

ovens greater than 30-inches in width as 

part of its test sample. DOE is not aware 

of data showing the improved cooking 

performance of these products due to 

the features described in the comments 

as compared to conventional gas ovens 

not marketed as commercial-style or 

commercial-style gas ovens less than or 

equal to 30 inches in width. All of the 

commercial-style ovens evaluated by 

DOE contained features such as infrared 

broilers, convection fans, and hidden 

bake elements, but DOE observed that 

many of the same features were also 

available in conventional gas ovens with 

lower input rates. DOE welcomes data 

demonstrating the improved cooking 

performance associated with the 

features for commercial-style gas ovens 

with widths greater than 30-inches that 

result in increased energy consumption, 

but are not available in conventional gas 

ovens with lower input rates or 

commercial-style gas ovens with widths 

of 30 inches or less. 

Based on DOE’s testing, reverse 

engineering, and additional discussions 

with manufacturers, DOE determined 

that the major differentiation between 

conventional gas ovens with lower 

burner input rates and those with higher 

input rates, including those marketed as 

commercial-style, was design and 

construction related to aesthetics rather 

than improved cooking performance. 

Further, DOE did not identify any 

unique utility conferred by commercialstyle gas ovens. For the reasons 

discussed above, DOE is not proposing 

to establish a separate product class for 

conventional gas ovens with higher 

burner input rates. 

As discussed in section III.B, in the 

October 2012 TP Final Rule, DOE 

amended appendix I to include methods 

for measuring fan-only mode.24 Based 

on DOE’s testing of freestanding, builtin, and slide-in conventional gas and 

electric ovens, DOE noted that all of the 

built-in and slide-in ovens tested 

consumed energy in fan-only mode, 

whereas freestanding ovens did not. The 

energy consumption in fan-only mode 

for built-in and slide-in ovens ranged 

from approximately 1.3 to 37.6 watthours (Wh) per cycle (0.25 to 7.6 kWh/ 

yr). Based on DOE’s reverse engineering 

analyses discussed in section IV.C.2, 

DOE noted that built-in and slide-in 

products had an additional exhaust fan 

and vent assembly that was not present 

in freestanding products. The additional 

energy required to exhaust air from the 

oven cavity is necessary for slide-in and 

built-in installation configurations to 

meet safety-related temperature 

requirements because the oven is 

enclosed in cabinetry. For these reasons, 

DOE proposes to include separate 

product classes for freestanding and 

built-in/slide-in ovens. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33046 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

In summary, DOE proposes the 

product classes listed in Table IV–3 for 

the NOPR. 

TABLE IV–3—PROPOSED PRODUCT CLASSES FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS

Product class Product type Sub-category Installation type 

1 ................................. Electric oven .............. Standard with or without a catalytic line ......................................................... Freestanding. 

2 ................................. .................................... ......................................................................................................................... Built-in/Slide-in. 

3 ................................. .................................... Self-clean ........................................................................................................ Freestanding. 

4 ................................. .................................... ......................................................................................................................... Built-in/Slide-in. 

5 ................................. Gas oven ................... Standard with or without a catalytic line ......................................................... Freestanding. 

6 ................................. .................................... ......................................................................................................................... Built-in/Slide-in. 

7 ................................. .................................... Self-clean ........................................................................................................ Freestanding. 

8 ................................. .................................... ......................................................................................................................... Built-in/Slide-in. 

3. Technology Options 

As part of the market and technology 

assessment, DOE uses information about 

existing and past technology options 

and prototype designs to help identify 

technologies that manufacturers could 

use to improve energy efficiency. 

Initially, these technologies encompass 

all those that DOE believes are 

technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of 

the NOPR TSD includes the detailed list 

and descriptions of all technology 

options identified for this equipment. 

In the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated 

that based on a preliminary review of 

the cooking products market and 

information published in recent trade 

publications, technical reports, and 

manufacturer literature, the results of 

the technology screening analysis 

performed during the previous 

standards rulemaking remain largely 

relevant for this rulemaking. 79 FR 

8337, 8341 (Feb. 12, 2014). DOE stated 

in the February 2014 RFI that it planned 

to consider the technology options 

presented in Table IV–4 for 

conventional ovens. 79 FR 8337, 8342– 

8343 (Feb. 12, 2014). 

TABLE IV–4—FEBRUARY 2014 RFI 

TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS

1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only). 

2. Electronic spark ignition (gas only). 

3. Forced convection. 

4. Halogen lamp oven (electric only). 

5. Improved and added insulation. 

6. Improved door seals. 

7. No oven-door window. 

8. Oven separator. 

9. Radiant burner (gas only). 

10. Reduced conduction losses. 

11. Reduced thermal mass. 

12. Reduced vent rate. 

13. Reflective surfaces. 

14. Steam cooking. 

15. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

In response to the February 2014 RFI, 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding the technology options for 

conventional ovens. 

AHAM commented that forced 

convection should not be considered a 

technology option for gas or electric 

ovens. AHAM stated that only some 

foods can be cooked with convection 

and that accelerating the cooking time 

or baking rate for other foods will not 

produce acceptable results. 

Accordingly, AHAM believes this 

technology option would impact 

consumer utility. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at 

p. 5) DOE recognizes that using forced 

convection for cooking certain foods 

may be undesirable. DOE is not 

considering forced convection as a 

complete replacement to the 

conventional bake cooking function. 

Instead DOE considered forced 

convection as a separate heating mode 

in addition to the bake function for the 

engineering analysis. DOE also notes 

that the test procedure in Appendix I 

averages the energy consumption 

measured during bake-only mode with 

the energy consumption measured 

during forced convection mode to 

calculate the total cooking efficiency 

and IAEC for the oven, representing 

equal use of forced convection and 

bake-only cooking cycles. As a result, 

DOE is retaining forced convection as a 

technology option for this NOPR. 

AHAM and Whirlpool commented 

that reducing the vent rate should not be 

considered because it could result in 

incomplete combustion. In addition, 

AHAM stated that it would impact the 

ability of the product to manage 

moisture release. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at 

p. 6; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) As 

noted in the 2009 TSD, DOE believes 

that vent size of both standard electric 

and standard gas ovens could be 

reduced while maintaining a 

satisfactory combustion environment. 

Since all Self-Clean ovens are already 

designed with this technology, no new 

improvements are required by the 

industry to incorporate this technology 

option. DOE noted in the 2009 TSD that 

an increase of approximately 0.62 

absolute percentage points for standard 

electric ovens and 0.5 absolute 

percentage points for standard gas ovens 

was possible with this technology 

option. As a result, DOE retained 

reduced vent rate as a technology option 

for standard ovens for this NOPR. 

AHAM commented that improved 

door seals may not provide a significant 

improvement in efficiency. (AHAM, 

STD No. 9 at p. 6) DOE notes that door 

seals for standard ovens generally 

consist of a strip of silicone rubber, 

while Self-Clean ovens usually 

incorporate fiberglass seals. Because 

some venting is required for proper 

cooking performance, a complete seal 

on the oven is undesirable. As DOE 

noted in the 2009 TSD, the oven door 

seals can be improved further without 

sealing the oven completely. Based on 

discussions with manufacturers, DOE 

believes that fiberglass seals can be 

installed in standard ovens to improve 

efficiency. As a result, DOE retained 

improved door seals as a technology 

option for standard ovens. 

Whirlpool commented that it has 

already optimized insulation in its 

ovens for safety reasons. (Whirlpool, 

STD No. 13 at p. 4) DOE noted in the 

2009 TSD that standard ovens used lowdensity insulation (1.09 pounds (lb)/ft3) 

whereas self-clean ovens used higherdensity insulation (1.90 lb/ft3). Based on 

interviews with manufacturers for this 

rulemaking, DOE notes that 

manufacturers generally use the same 

amount of insulation for standard ovens 

versus self-clean ovens, but with 

different densities. Insulation is added 

primarily to pass Underwriters 

Laboratory (UL) surface temperature 

safety testing requirements, which 

explains why Self-Clean ovens, which 

require high temperatures for pyrolysis, 

tend to have a more effective insulation 

package. DOE notes that higher-density 

insulation can be used in standard 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33047 

ovens to improve efficiency. As a result, 

DOE retained improved insulation as a 

technology option for standard ovens. 

Whirlpool commented that there may 

be savings associated with steam 

cooking realized by the user, but these 

savings would likely not be measured in 

the DOE test procedure. (Whirlpool, 

STD No. 13 at p. 4) While there are 

several residential steam ovens 

currently on the market, DOE is 

unaware of any test procedures that 

accurately measure the energy use of the 

steam cooking mode while producing 

repeatable and reproducible results. As 

a result, DOE is unaware of any data 

regarding the efficiency of steam 

cooking. For these reasons, DOE did not 

consider steam cooking in the analysis. 

Whirlpool commented that there 

could be savings for gas ovens from 

electronic spark ignition over a glo-bar 

igniter, which could use 250–500W 

throughout the cooking cycle. 

(Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) As 

discussed in section IV.C.2, based on 

DOE’s testing, DOE agrees that 

switching from a glo-bar to an electronic 

spark ignition system would result in 

energy savings. As a result, DOE is 

maintaining electronic spark ignition as 

a technology option for this NOPR. 

Based on DOE’s review of products on 

the market, DOE notes that radiant 

burners for gas ovens are only 

incorporated into broiling, which is a 

secondary cooking function not 

measured under the test procedure; 

energy use is instead measured during 

the primary bake function. As a result, 

the benefits of radiant burners are not 

measured by the current test procedure. 

Accordingly, DOE eliminated radiant 

burners in gas ovens from further 

analysis. 

In the previous standards rulemaking, 

DOE noted that oven separators had 

only been researched, but never put into 

production. 72 FR 64432, 64456 (Nov. 

15, 2007). Based on DOE’s review of 

products on the market, DOE notes that 

one manufacturer offers a conventional 

electric oven with an oven separator. As 

a result, DOE plans to consider oven 

separators as a technology option for 

electric ovens. 

In addition to the technology options 

presented in Table IV–4, DOE 

considered an additional technology 

option for optimizing the burner and 

cavity design for gas ovens based on 

product testing and reverse engineering 

analyses conducted for this NOPR. As 

described in section IV.A.2 and further 

in section IV.C.2, DOE’s testing 

indicated that reducing the thermal 

mass of the oven cavity can increase 

cooking efficiency. Because oven cavity 

and burner design are interdependent, 

DOE is proposing to consider optimized 

burner and cavity design as a 

technology option for increasing 

efficiency for gas ovens consistent with 

products available on the market rather 

than the reduced thermal mass 

technology option considered for the 

previous rulemaking. 

Table IV–5 lists the proposed 

technology options that DOE is 

considering for the NOPR. 

TABLE IV–5—PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY

OPTIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS

1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only). 

2. Electronic spark ignition (gas only). 

3. Forced convection. 

4. Halogen lamp oven (electric only). 

5. Improved and added insulation (standard 

ovens only). 

6. Improved door seals. 

7. No oven-door window. 

8. Oven separator (electric only). 

9. Reduced conduction losses. 

10. Reduced vent rate. 

11. Reflective surfaces. 

12. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

13. Optimized burner and cavity design. 

DOE seeks comment on the use of 

optimized burner and cavity design (and 

other options listed in Table IV–5) to 

meet the proposed efficiency levels 

discussed in section I.A.1.b. (See section 

VII.E) 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four 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 working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the compliance date of the 

standard, then that technology will not 

be considered further. 

3. Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have significant 

adverse impact on the utility of the 

product to significant subgroups of 

consumers or would 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. Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on health or safety, it 

will not be considered further. (10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) 

and 5(b)) 

In sum, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the above four criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed below. 

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 

For conventional ovens, DOE 

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

oven door window, and reflective 

surfaces, for the reasons that follow. 

Although some analyses have shown 

reduced energy consumption by 

increasing the thickness of the 

insulation in the oven cabinet walls and 

doors from two inches to four inches, 

consumer utility would be negatively 

impacted by the necessary reduction in 

cavity volume to maintain the same 

oven footprint and overall cabinet 

volume. Therefore, DOE screened out 

added insulation. The improved 

insulation design option, however, will 

be retained, because insulation with a 

higher density (i.e., greater insulating 

value) does not require additional space 

and thus would not impact oven cavity 

size. 

The last working prototype of a biradiant oven known to DOE was tested 

in the 1970s. The technology requires a 

low-emissivity cavity, electronic 

controls, and highly absorptive cooking 

utensils. The need for specialized 

cookware and cavity maintenance issues 

negatively impact consumer utility. 

Therefore, DOE screened out bi-radiant 

ovens from further analysis. 

DOE is not aware of any ovens that 

utilize halogen lamps alone as the 

heating element, and no data were 

found or submitted to demonstrate how 

efficiently halogen elements alone 

perform relative to conventional ovens. 

DOE believes that it would not be 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service halogen lamps for use in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33048 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

consumer cooking products on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the standard’s effective date. 

Therefore, DOE screened out halogen 

lamp ovens. 

Whirlpool commented that oven door 

windows are a key consumer utility and 

purchase driver, and there may even be 

more energy used from increased door 

openings to check on food (associated 

with no oven door window) versus 

looking through the window. 

(Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 4) DOE 

notes that the 2009 TSD reported a 

small annual energy savings associated 

with no oven door window, but that 

consumer practices of opening the door 

to inspect the food while cooking could 

negate any benefit. Comments during 

manufacturer interviews and comments 

from stakeholders in previous 

rulemakings agreed that removing the 

window was not a feasible option for 

most ovens. 63 FR 48038, 48040–48041 

(Sep. 8, 1998); 72 FR 64432, 64456 (Nov. 

15, 2007). Reduced consumer utility and 

the potential for increased energy use 

along with decreased safety due to the 

additional door openings, justify 

elimination of this design option from 

further analysis. In addition, DOE 

addresses the efficiency impact of 

double-pane or other highly insulated 

oven door windows by means of the 

reduced conduction losses design 

option, which has been retained for 

further analysis. 

Whirlpool commented that reflective 

surfaces would be very difficult to 

implement correctly. Whirlpool stated 

that there would be reduced consumer 

savings if the surface gets dirty and 

reduced consumer functionality from 

the appearance of stains. (Whirlpool, 

STD No. 13 at p. 4) In the 2009 TSD, 

DOE noted that manufacturers have 

stated that it has been very difficult to 

obtain satisfactory cooking performance 

with reflective surfaces and that 

reflective surfaces degrade after the first 

baking function and continue to degrade 

through the life of the product. DOE also 

noted in the 2009 TSD that is uncertain 

whether, or how much, energy savings 

is realizable with this technology 

option. Because of the uncertainty of the 

potential energy savings and the general 

lack of sophistication in the technology 

in terms of maintaining clean, reflective 

surfaces over the lifetime of the product, 

DOE screened out this technology 

option from further analysis. 

2. Remaining Technologies 

Based on the screening analysis, DOE 

considered the design options listed in 

Table IV–6 for conventional ovens. 

TABLE IV–6—REMAINING CONVENTIONAL OVEN TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

1. Electronic spark ignition (gas only). 

2. Forced convection. 

3. Improved insulation. 

4. Improved door seals (standard ovens 

only). 

5. Oven separator (electric only). 

6. Reduced conduction losses. 

7. Reduced vent rate. 

8. Low-standby-loss electronic controls. 

9. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas 

only). 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis estimates 

the cost-efficiency relationship of 

products at different levels of increased 

energy efficiency. This relationship 

serves as the basis for the cost-benefit 

calculations for consumers, 

manufacturers, and the Nation. In 

determining the cost-efficiency 

relationship, DOE estimates the increase 

in manufacturer cost associated with 

increasing the efficiency of products 

from the baseline up to the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

efficiency level for each product class. 

1. Methodology 

DOE typically structures the 

engineering analysis using one of three 

approaches: (1) The design-option 

approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of adding design 

options to a baseline model that will 

improve its efficiency (i.e., lower its 

energy use); (2) the efficiency-level 

approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of moving to higher 

energy efficiency levels, without regard 

to the particular design option(s) used to 

achieve such increases; and (3) the 

reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment) 

approach, which provides ‘‘bottom-up’’ 

manufacturing cost assessments for 

achieving various levels of increased 

efficiency, based on teardown analyses 

(or physical teardowns) that provide 

detailed data on costs for parts and 

material, labor, overhead, and 

equipment, tooling, conveyor, and space 

investments for models that operate at 

particular efficiency levels. 

In the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated 

that in order to create the cost-efficiency 

relationship, it anticipated having to 

structure its engineering analysis using 

a design-option approach, 

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. In addition, DOE stated 

that it intends to consider costefficiency data from the 2009 TSD. 79 

FR 8337, 8347 (Feb. 12, 2014). DOE 

maintained this approach for this 

NOPR. DOE also conducted interviews 

with manufacturers of conventional 

ovens to develop a deeper 

understanding of the various 

combinations of design options used to 

increase product efficiency, and their 

associated manufacturing costs. 

2. Product Testing and Reverse 

Engineering 

To develop the cost-efficiency 

relationships for the engineering 

analysis, 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 conventional 

cooking products, DOE selected test 

units based on performance-related 

features and technologies advertised in 

product literature. DOE’s test sample 

included 1 gas wall oven, 7 gas ranges, 

5 electric wall ovens, and 2 electric 

ranges for a total of 15 conventional 

ovens covering all of the product classes 

considered in this NOPR. The test units 

are described in detail in chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

Each test unit was tested according to 

the oven test procedure clarifications 

proposed in the December 2014 TP 

SNOPR. DOE then conducted physical 

teardowns on each test unit to develop 

a manufacturing cost model and to 

evaluate key design features. DOE 

supplemented its reverse engineering 

analyses by conducting manufacturer 

interviews to obtain feedback on 

efficiency levels, design options, inputs 

for the manufacturing cost model, and 

resulting manufacturing costs. DOE 

used the results from testing, reverse 

engineering, and manufacturer 

interviews to develop the efficiency 

levels and manufacturing costs 

discussed in sections IV.C.3 and IV.C.4. 

Table IV–7 and Table IV–8 present the 

testing results for the conventional gas 

and electric ovens, respectively. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33049 

25 In the May 2012 microwave oven test 

procedure SNOPR, DOE considered test procedure 

amendments for measuring the standby mode and 

off mode energy consumption of combined cooking 

products and, as a result, presented standby power 

data for microwave ovens, conventional cooking 

tops, and conventional ovens. 77 FR 28805, 28811 

(May 16, 2012). 

26 DOE notes that the previous conventional 

cooking products test procedure in appendix I 

included the clock energy consumption. As a result, 

DOE subtracted the clock energy consumption 

before adding the standby and off mode energy 

consumption when considering integrated 

efficiency levels for this standards rulemaking. 

TABLE IV–7—DOE CONVENTIONAL GAS OVEN TEST RESULTS

Test Unit No. Oven product class 

Burner input 

rate 

(Btu/h) 

Cavity volume 

(ft3) Ignition type Convection 

(Y/N) 

IAEC 

(kBtu/yr) 

1 ........................ Gas Standard—Freestanding ................. 18,000 4.8 Spark ........... N 1341.4 

2 ........................ Gas Standard—Freestanding ................. 18,000 4.8 Glo-bar ........ N 1503.7 

3 ........................ Gas Self-Clean—Freestanding ............... 18,000 5.0 Glo-bar ........ Y 1419.0 

4 ........................ Gas Standard—Freestanding ................. 16,500 4.4 Glo-bar ........ N 1516.6 

5 ........................ Gas Self-Clean—Built-in/Slide-in ............ 13,000 2.8 Glo-bar ........ N 1171.3 

6 ........................ Gas Standard—Freestanding ................. 28,000 5.3 Glo-bar ........ Y 2078.9 

7 ........................ Gas Standard—Built-in/Slide-in .............. 27,000 4.4 Glo-bar ........ Y 1938.0 

8 ........................ Gas Standard—Freestanding ................. 30,000 5.4 Glo-bar ........ Y 2315.1 

TABLE IV–8—DOE CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC OVEN TEST RESULTS

Test Unit No. Oven product class 

Heating element wattage 

(W) 

Cavity volume 

(ft3) 

Convection 

(Y/N) 

IAEC 

(kWh/yr) 

1 ........................ Electric Self-Clean—Freestanding ................................... 3,000 5.9 * Y 266.2 

2 ........................ Electric Standard—Freestanding ...................................... 2,000 2.4 N 213.7 

3 ........................ Electric Self-Clean—Built-in/Slide-in ................................ 3,400 2.7 N 158.7 

4 ........................ Electric Standard—Built-in/Slide-in ................................... 2,600 4.3 N 287.8 

5 ........................ Electric Self-Clean—Built-in/Slide-in ................................ 2,600 4.3 N 308.8 

6 ........................ Electric Self-Clean—Built-in/Slide-in ................................ 2,600 4.3 Y 341.8 

7 ........................ Electric Self-Clean—Built-in/Slide-in ................................ 2,800 4.3 N 370.0 

* Test Unit 1 was equipped with an oven separator that allowed for splitting the single cavity into two separate smaller cavities with volumes of 

2.7 ft3 and 3.0 ft3. 

3. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

A baseline unit is a product that just 

meets current Federal energy 

conservation standards. DOE uses the 

baseline unit for comparison in several 

phases of the NOPR analyses, including 

the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, 

PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine 

energy savings that will result from an 

amended energy conservation standard, 

DOE compares energy use at each of the 

higher energy ELs to the energy 

consumption of the baseline unit. 

Similarly, to determine the changes in 

price to the consumer that will result 

from an amended energy conservation 

standard, DOE compares the price of a 

unit at each higher EL to the price of a 

unit at the baseline. 

As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE 

initially developed baseline efficiency 

levels by considering the current 

standards for conventional gas ovens 

and the baseline efficiency levels for 

conventional electric ovens from the 

previous standards rulemaking analysis. 

DOE developed tentative baseline 

efficiency levels for the February 2014 

RFI considering the current test 

procedure in appendix I. The baseline 

efficiency levels proposed in the 

February 2014 RFI are presented in 

Table IV–9. DOE developed baseline 

efficiency levels for standby mode and 

off mode based on test data presented in 

the microwave oven test procedure 

SNOPR.25 For fan-only mode, DOE 

developed baseline efficiency levels 

considering the additional annual 

energy consumption in fan-only mode 

based on test data presented in an 

SNOPR for the conventional cooking 

products test procedure. 77 FR 31443, 

31449 (May 25, 2012). The efficiency 

levels presented in the February 2014 

RFI are based on an oven with a cavity 

volume of 3.9 ft3. 

TABLE IV–9—FEBRUARY 2014 RFI CONVENTIONAL OVEN BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Product class 

2009 Standards rulemaking 

Proposed IAEC Energy factor 

(EF) Annual energy consumption 26

Electric Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic 

Line.

0.1066 274.9 kWh ............................... 370.0 kWh. 

Electric Oven—Self-Clean Oven .............................................. 0.1099 266.6 kWh ............................... 360.0 kWh. 

Gas Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ... 0.0536 1656.7 kBtu ............................. 2076.5 kBtu. 

Gas Oven—Self-Clean Oven .................................................... 0.0540 1644.4 kBtu ............................. 1965.0 kBtu. 

AHAM commented that, while they 

agreed fan-only mode should be 

considered, DOE should gather more 

data before determining appropriate 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33050 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

baseline levels. AHAM stated that DOE 

should update the data collected during 

the test procedure rulemaking and 

request information from manufacturers 

on the energy use in fan-only mode. 

(AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 6) Whirlpool 

commented that fan-only mode power 

varies greatly for ovens and depends on 

the size of the oven, insulation, dual or 

single speed fan, single or double oven, 

etc. Whirlpool stated that it does not 

currently have fan-only mode data and 

cannot comment on the appropriateness 

of DOE’s assumptions for fan-only 

power. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 6) 

DOE developed baseline efficiency 

levels for this NOPR considering both 

data from the previous standards 

rulemaking and the measured energy 

use for the test units. As discussed in 

section IV.C.2, DOE conducted testing 

for all units in its test sample to measure 

IAEC, which includes energy use in 

active mode (including fan-only mode) 

and standby mode. DOE also requested 

energy use data as part of the 

manufacturer interviews. However, 

because manufacturers are not currently 

required to conduct testing according to 

the DOE test procedure, very little 

energy use information was available. 

The baseline efficiency levels for this 

NOPR differ from those presented in the 

February 2014 RFI. DOE compared the 

minimum cooking efficiency measured 

in its test sample to the minimum 

cooking efficiency levels assumed for 

the previous standards rulemaking 

analysis. Often, the lowest measured 

efficiency in DOE’s test sample for this 

NOPR was lower than the values for the 

previous rulemaking. 

To update the baseline efficiency 

levels for conventional ovens, first DOE 

derived a new relationship between 

IAEC and cavity volume as discussed in 

section I.A.1.c. 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/range 

with the highest standby energy 

consumption in DOE’s test sample to 

maintain the full functionality of 

controls for consumer utility. While 

only DOE test data was available to 

validate the baseline equation for gas 

ovens, DOE compared the new baseline 

equation for electric ovens with data 

available in the Natural Resources 

Canada (NRCan) databases, which 

showed that DOE’s assumptions for 

slopes and intercepts reasonably 

represented the market. A detailed 

discussion of DOE’s derivation of the 

cavity volume relationship is provided 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

In addition to the product classes 

proposed in the February 2014 RFI, DOE 

is also proposing separate product 

classes for freestanding and built-in/

slide-in ovens as discussed in section 

IV.A.2. As a result, DOE developed 

separate baseline efficiency levels for 

each proposed product class based on 

testing conducted for this NOPR. The 

proposed baseline efficiency levels for 

this NOPR are presented in Table IV–10. 

After receiving manufacturer feedback 

and reviewing products currently on the 

market, DOE determined that a cavity 

volume of 3.9 ft3 no longer represents 

the market average. Thus, efficiency 

levels are based on an oven with a 

cavity volume of 4.3 ft3. Additional 

details on the development of the 

proposed baseline efficiency levels are 

included in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV–10—CONVENTIONAL OVEN BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Product class Sub type Proposed IAEC * 

Electric Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ............ Freestanding ..................................

Built-in/Slide-in ...............................

294.5 kWh. 

301.5 kWh. 

Electric Oven—Self-Clean Oven ............................................................. Freestanding ..................................

Built-in/Slide-in ...............................

355.0 kWh. 

361.1 kWh. 

Gas Oven—Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ................. Freestanding ..................................

Built-in/Slide-in ...............................

2118.2 kBtu. 

2128.1 kBtu. 

Gas Oven—Self-Clean Oven .................................................................. Freestanding ..................................

Built-in/Slide-in ...............................

1883.8 kBtu. 

1893.7 kBtu. 

* Proposed IAEC baseline efficiency levels are normalized based on a 4.3 ft3 volume oven. 

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

For each product class, DOE analyzes 

several efficiency levels and determines 

the incremental cost at each of these 

levels. For the February 2014 RFI, DOE 

tentatively proposed the incremental 

efficiency levels presented in Table IV– 

11 through Table IV–14. DOE developed 

these levels based primarily on the 

efficiency levels presented in the 2009 

TSD, adjusted to account for the 

proposed and amended test procedures. 

DOE also considered efficiency levels 

for standby mode and off mode 

associated with changing conventional 

linear power supplies to switch-mode 

power supplies and the Commission of 

the European Communities Regulation 

1275/2008 (hereinafter ‘‘Ecodesign 

regulation’’), which requires products to 

have a maximum standby power of 1 W. 

79 FR 8337, 8345–8346 (Feb. 12, 

2014).The efficiency levels presented in 

the February 2014 RFI are based on an 

oven with a cavity volume of 3.9 ft3. 

TABLE IV–11—FEBRUARY 2014 RFI GAS STANDARD OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level source Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) 

Baseline ................. 2009 TSD (Electric Glo-bar Ignition) ........................................................................................................ 2076.5 

1 ............................. 2009 TSD (Electric Glo-bar Ignition) + SMPS .......................................................................................... 1932.0 

2 ............................. 2009 TSD (Improved Insulation) + SMPS ................................................................................................ 1844.2 

3 ............................. 2009 TSD (2 + Electronic Spark Ignition) + SMPS .................................................................................. 1717.7 

4 ............................. 2009 TSD (3 + Improved Door Seals) + SMPS ....................................................................................... 1702.6 

5 ............................. 2009 TSD (4 + Reduced Vent Rate) + SMPS ......................................................................................... 1695.4 

6 ............................. 2009 TSD (5 + Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS ........................................................................... 1685.9 

7 ............................. 2009 TSD (6 + Forced Convection) + SMPS ........................................................................................... 1636.0 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33051 

TABLE IV–11—FEBRUARY 2014 RFI GAS STANDARD OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued 

Level Efficiency level source Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) 

8 ............................. 2009 TSD (7) + 1W Standby .................................................................................................................... 1499.1 

TABLE IV–12—FEBRUARY 2014 RFI GAS SELF-CLEAN OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level source Proposed IAEC 

(kBtu) 

Baseline ................. 2009 TSD (Baseline) ................................................................................................................................ 1965.0 

1 ............................. 2009 TSD (Baseline) + SMPS .................................................................................................................. 1820.5 

2 ............................. 2009 TSD (Forced Convection) + SMPS ................................................................................................. 1596.9 

3 ............................. 2009 TSD (2) + Electronic Spark Ignition + SMPS .................................................................................. 1482.3 

4 ............................. 2009 TSD (3 + Improved Door Seals) + SMPS ....................................................................................... 1472.0 

5 ............................. 2009 TSD (4 + Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS ........................................................................... 1467.8 

6 ............................. 2009 TSD (5) + 1 W Standby ................................................................................................................... 1330.9 

TABLE IV–13—FEBRUARY 2014 RFI ELECTRIC STANDARD OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level source Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) 

Baseline ................. 2009 TSD (Baseline) ................................................................................................................................ 370.0 

1 ............................. 2009 TSD (Baseline) + SMPS .................................................................................................................. 327.7 

2 ............................. 2009 TSD (Reduced Vent Rate) + SMPS ................................................................................................ 316.1 

3 ............................. 2009 TSD (2 + Improved Insulation) + SMPS ......................................................................................... 304.8 

4 ............................. 2009 TSD (3 + Improved Door Seals) + SMPS ....................................................................................... 300.9 

5 ............................. 2009 TSD (4 + Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS ........................................................................... 300.3 

6 ............................. 2009 TSD (5 + Forced Convection) + SMPS ........................................................................................... 295.2 

7 ............................. 2009 TSD (6) + 1 W Standby ................................................................................................................... 255.0 

TABLE IV–14—FEBRUARY 2014 RFI ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level source Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) 

Baseline ................. 2009 TSD (Baseline) ................................................................................................................................ 360.0 

1 ............................. 2009 TSD (Baseline) + SMPS .................................................................................................................. 317.7 

2 ............................. 2009 TSD (Reduced Conduction Losses) + SMPS ................................................................................. 317.0 

3 ............................. 2009 TSD (2 + Forced Convection) + SMPS ........................................................................................... 312.0 

4 ............................. 2009 TSD (3) + 1 W Standby ................................................................................................................... 271.9 

In response to the February 2014 RFI, 

AHAM disagreed with DOE’s 

consideration of the 1–W Ecodesign 

regulation standby requirements 

because products sold in the European 

Union are different from the products 

sold in the United States. (AHAM, STD 

No. 9 at p. 6) DOE reevaluated the 

efficiency levels associated with 

standby power improvements based on 

design options identified during 

product testing and reverse engineering 

rather than considering an efficiency 

level specifically associated with the 

1–W Ecodesign regulation standby 

requirement. 

Laclede commented that DOE’s 

assumption of 3.5 amp × 110 volt 

continuous consumption of a typical 

glo-bar ignition module would mean its 

consuming 385 W (0.385 kW) per hour. 

Laclede stated that they believe this may 

be the worst-case scenario and may 

make it appear that further efficiency 

improvements are possible. However, 

Lacelede stated that further efficiency 

improvements in glo-bar may lead to 

higher costs for gas cooking products 

without sufficient economic benefits. 

Laclede’s testing data indicates glo-bar 

ignition system consumption of only 

0.16 kWh. (Laclede, STD No. 8 at p. 2) 

Laclede also commented that it appears 

that DOE considers the electric load 

from glo-bar ignition systems as of no 

value to the thermal process of cooking 

in the oven. Laclede contends this 

electric resistance load in gas ovens 

most likely does contribute to the 

cooking process and DOE will need to 

provide transparent and robust analyses 

to explain this relationship. (Laclede, 

STD No. 8 at pp. 2–3) 

Based on DOE’s testing of units in its 

test sample, electric glo-bar ignition 

systems consumed between 330 W and 

450 W and ranged between 0.141 kWh 

and 0.261 kWh per cycle, with an 

average of 0.202 kWh per cycle. DOE 

notes that the glo-bar energy 

consumption may vary depending on 

burner and cavity design (e.g., burner 

input rating, cavity volume). DOE also 

notes that the glo-bar ignition system 

was not power on throughout the entire 

cooking cycle and only consumed 

power when gas flow to the burner was 

on, turning off when the burner cycled 

off. As discussed above, DOE updated 

its efficiency level analysis based on 

testing conducted for this NOPR. Any 

contribution of the glo-bar ignition 

system to heating the load would be 

accounted for in testing according to the 

DOE test procedure in Appendix I. 

For the NOPR, DOE developed 

incremental efficiency levels for each 

product class by first considering 

information from the 2009 TSD. In cases 

where DOE identified design options 

during testing and reverse engineering 

teardowns, DOE updated the efficiency 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33052 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

levels based on the tested data. In 

addition to the efficiency levels 

associated with design options 

identified in the February 2014 RFI, 

DOE also included an efficiency level 

for electric ovens based on a test unit 

equipped with an oven separator that 

allowed for reducing the cavity volume 

that is used for cooking. For 

conventional gas ovens, DOE’s testing 

showed that energy use was correlated 

to oven burner and cavity design (e.g., 

thermal mass of the cavity and racks) 

and can be significantly reduced when 

optimized. DOE determined the 

efficiency level associated with 

optimized burner and cavity design 

based on the tested units normalized for 

cavity volume. 

Table IV–15 through Table IV–18 

show the incremental efficiency levels 

for each product class, including 

whether the efficiency level is from the 

2009 TSD or based on testing for the 

NOPR. The efficiency levels are 

normalized based on an oven with a 

cavity volume of 4.3 ft3. Details of the 

derivations of each efficiency level are 

provided in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV–15—ELECTRIC STANDARD OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level 

source Design option 

Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) Relative % 

decrease in 

IAEC Freestanding Built-in/Slide-in 

Baseline ............ NOPR Testing ........ Baseline .................................................................... 294.5 301.5 ........................

1 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ Baseline + SMPS ..................................................... 284.6 291.4 ¥3.37% 

2 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 1 + Reduced Vent Rate ........................................... 271.7 278.2 ¥4.51% 

3 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 2 + Improved Insulation ............................................ 259.2 265.4 ¥4.61% 

4 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 3 + Improved Door Seals ......................................... 254.9 261.0 ¥1.64% 

5 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 4 + Forced Convection ............................................. 244.6 250.5 ¥4.04% 

6 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 5 + Oven Separator .................................................. 207.8 212.8 ¥15.04% 

7 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 6 + Reduced Conduction Losses ............................. 207.3 212.2 ¥0.27% 

TABLE IV–16—ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level 

source Design option 

Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) Relative % 

decrease in 

IAEC Freestanding Built-in/Slide-in 

Baseline ............ NOPR Testing ........ Baseline .................................................................... 355.0 361.1 ........................

1 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ Baseline + SMPS ..................................................... 345.1 351.0 ¥2.78% 

2 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 1 + Forced Convection ............................................. 327.2 332.7 ¥5.21% 

3 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 2 + Oven Separator .................................................. 278.9 283.7 ¥14.74% 

4 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 3 + Reduced Conduction Losses ............................. 278.1 282.9 ¥0.29% 

TABLE IV–17—GAS STANDARD OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level 

source Design option 

Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) Relative % 

decrease in 

IAEC Freestanding Built-in/Slide-in 

Baseline ............ 2009 TSD ............... Baseline .................................................................... 2118.2 2128.1 ........................

1 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ Baseline + Optimized Burner/Cavity ........................ 1649.3 1657.0 ¥22.14% 

2 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 1 + SMPS ................................................................. 1614.7 1622.2 ¥2.10% 

3 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 2 + Electronic Spark Ignition .................................... 1490.7 1497.7 ¥7.68% 

4 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 3 + Improved Insulation ............................................ 1414.8 1421.5 ¥5.09% 

5 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 4 + Improved Door Seals ......................................... 1400.6 1407.2 ¥1.01% 

6 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 5 + Forced Convection ............................................. 1355.6 1362.0 ¥3.21% 

7 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 6 + Reduced Conduction Losses ............................. 1347.0 1353.3 ¥0.64% 

TABLE IV–18—GAS SELF-CLEAN OVEN EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Level Efficiency level 

source Design option 

Proposed IAEC 

(kWh) Relative % 

decrease in 

IAEC Freestanding Built-in/Slide-in 

Baseline ............ 2009 TSD ............... Baseline .................................................................... 1883.8 1893.7 ........................

1 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ Baseline + SMPS ..................................................... 1848.2 1858.0 ¥1.89% 

2 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 1 + Electronic Spark Ignition .................................... 1668.7 1677.5 ¥9.71% 

3 ........................ NOPR Testing ........ 2 + Forced Convection ............................................. 1596.3 1604.7 ¥4.34% 

4 ........................ 2009 TSD .............. 3 + Reduced Conduction Losses ............................. 1591.0 1599.4 ¥0.33% 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33053 

27Available at: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/

index.cfm?action=app.searchrecherche&appliance=OVENS_E. 

28Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

c. Relationship Between IAEC and Oven 

Cavity Volume 

The conventional oven efficiency 

levels detailed above are predicated 

upon baseline ovens with a cavity 

volume of 4.3 ft3. Based on DOE’s 

testing of conventional gas and electric 

ovens and discussions with 

manufacturers, IAEC scales with oven 

cavity volume due to the fact that larger 

ovens have higher thermal masses and 

larger volumes of air (including larger 

vent rates) than smaller ovens. Because 

the DOE test procedure for measuring 

IAEC uses a fixed test load size, larger 

ovens with higher thermal mass will 

have a higher measured IAEC. As a 

result, DOE considered available data to 

characterize the relationship between 

IAEC and oven cavity volume. 

DOE established the slopes by first 

evaluating the data from the 2009 TSD, 

which presented the relationship 

between measured energy factor (EF) 

and cavity volume, then translated from 

EF to IAEC considering the range of 

cavity volume for the majority of 

products available on the market. DOE 

believes these slopes continue to be 

relevant based on DOE’s testing. For 

electric ovens, DOE considered the data 

for standard and self-clean ovens 

available in the Natural Resources 

Canada product databases.27 DOE notes 

that this data is based on the same test 

procedure considered for the previous 

DOE standards rulemaking, and as a 

result, DOE believes the slopes based on 

these larger datasets are relevant for this 

analysis. The intercepts for each 

efficiency level were then chosen so that 

the equations pass through the desired 

IAEC corresponding to a particular 

volume. Values for the slopes and 

intercepts for each conventional oven 

product class are presented in Table IV– 

19 and Table IV–20. Additional details 

regarding the derivation of the slopes 

and intercepts for the oven IAEC versus 

cavity volume relationship are 

presented in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE IV–19—SLOPES AND INTERCEPTS OF ELECTRIC OVEN IAEC VERSUS CAVITY VOLUME RELATIONSHIP

Level 

Standard electric ovens Self-clean electric ovens 

Slope = 31.8 Slope = 42.3 

Freestanding 

intercepts 

Built-in/Slide-in 

intercepts 

Freestanding 

intercepts 

Built-in/slide-in 

intercepts 

Baseline ................................................................... 157.74 164.78 173.12 179.18 

1 ............................................................................... 147.82 154.62 163.24 169.13 

2 ............................................................................... 134.98 141.47 145.28 150.86 

3 ............................................................................... 122.45 128.64 97.05 101.81 

4 ............................................................................... 118.20 124.29 96.24 100.98 

5 ............................................................................... 107.91 113.75 .................................. ..................................

6 ............................................................................... 71.10 76.07 .................................. ..................................

7 ............................................................................... 70.54 75.49 .................................. ..................................

TABLE IV–20—SLOPES AND INTERCEPTS OF GAS OVEN IAEC VERSUS CAVITY VOLUME RELATIONSHIP

Level 

Standard gas ovens Self-clean gas ovens 

Slope = 214.4 Slope = 214.4 

Freestanding 

intercepts 

Built-in/slide-in 

intercepts 

Freestanding 

intercepts 

Built-in/slide-in 

intercepts 

Baseline ................................................................... 1196.3 1206.2 961.8 971.8 

1 ............................................................................... 727.4 735.1 926.3 936.0 

2 ............................................................................... 692.7 700.3 746.7 755.5 

3 ............................................................................... 568.8 575.8 674.4 682.8 

4 ............................................................................... 492.9 499.5 669.1 677.5 

5 ............................................................................... 478.7 485.2 .................................. ..................................

6 ............................................................................... 433.7 440.1 .................................. ..................................

7 ............................................................................... 425.1 431.4 .................................. ..................................

4. Incremental Manufacturing 

Production Cost Estimates 

Based on the analyses discussed 

above, DOE developed the costefficiency results for each product class 

shown in Table IV–21. Where available, 

DOE developed incremental 

manufacturing production costs (MPCs) 

based on manufacturing cost modeling 

of test units in its sample featuring the 

proposed design options. For design 

options that were not observed in DOE’s 

sample of test units for this NOPR, DOE 

used the incremental manufacturing 

costs developed as part of the 2009 TSD, 

then adjusted the values to reflect 

changes in the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ Producer Price Index (PPI) for 

household cooking appliance 

manufacturing.28 DOE notes that the 

estimated incremental MPCs would be 

equivalent for the freestanding and 

built-in/slide-in oven product classes. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33054 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

29U.S. Census, 2007 Annual Retail Trade Survey 

(ARTS), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors. 

TABLE IV–21—CONVENTIONAL OVEN INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING PRODUCT COST

[2014$] 

Level 

Electric ovens Gas ovens 

Standard Self-clean Standard Self-clean 

Baseline ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

1 ....................................................................................................................... $0.82 $0.82 $0.00 $0.82 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2.76 25.00 0.82 7.31 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 7.89 56.74 7.31 27.96 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 10.22 61.93 12.44 33.15 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 34.40 ........................ 14.77 ........................

6 ....................................................................................................................... 66.14 ........................ 35.43 ........................

7 ....................................................................................................................... 70.36 ........................ 39.74 ........................

5. Consumer Utility 

In determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

DOE to consider ‘‘any lessening of the 

utility or the performance of the covered 

products likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

In a response to the December 2014 

TP SNOPR, Sub Zero commented that 

heavier gauge materials provide 

customers with extended product life, 

quality, functionality, and durability. 

Sub Zero also commented that that full 

extension oven racks provided in these 

products provide consumer utility. (Sub 

Zero, TP No. 20 at p. 3) 

In response to the February 2014 RFI, 

AHAM and Whirlpool commented that 

new energy conservation standards 

could likely impact the utility of 

conventional ovens in the following 

ways: 

• A standard could lower burner 

input rates, which will impact cooking 

times. Higher burner input rates allow 

for quicker cooking time, which is an 

important consumer utility; 

• A standard could result in smaller 

oven windows. Consumers desire larger 

windows in order to view the food 

during cooking without opening the 

oven door. Smaller windows could 

result in more door openings, and thus 

increase energy use; 

• A standard could also result in the 

removal of accent lighting and large 

displays which are preferred consumer 

features. There is reduced consumer 

utility from further reducing standby 

power from what products use today. 

According to Whirlpool, the market is 

still pushing manufacturers to add more 

advanced electronics that use more 

standby power. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 

7; Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at pp. 5, 8). 

Accordingly, AHAM and Whirlpool 

opposed amendment of the existing 

standards for cooking products. AHAM 

and Whirlpool stated that not only 

would amended standards fail to be 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified, but they would also impact the 

utility of cooking products. (AHAM, 

STD No. 9 at p. 7; Whirlpool, STD No. 

13 at p. 8). 

DOE conducted the engineering 

analysis by considering design options 

that are consistent with products 

currently on the market, and as a result, 

DOE did not consider changes that 

would result in smaller oven windows 

or removal of accent lighting and 

display features. In addition, as 

discussed in section IV.A.2, DOE noted 

that gas ovens with higher burner input 

rates did not have significantly faster 

cooking times when tested according to 

the DOE test procedure in Appendix I. 

This is likely due in large part to the fact 

that gas-cooking products with higher 

burner input rates marketed as 

commercial-style often have 

significantly larger thermal masses, 

which absorb a significant amount of 

additional heat. DOE is also not aware 

of data justifying how added thermal 

mass improves durability, extends 

product life, or provides additional 

consumer utility as compared to 

standard residential-style ovens. As a 

result, DOE does not believe that any of 

the design options and efficiency levels 

considered in this NOPR would impact 

the consumer utility of conventional 

ovens, as suggested by AHAM and 

Whirlpool. However DOE welcomes 

continued feedback on this topic, 

including how the efficiency levels and 

technology options presented in Table 

IV–15 through Table IV–18 may affect 

consumer utility (see section VII.E). 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups in the distribution 

chain to convert the MPC estimates 

derived in the engineering analysis to 

consumer prices. At each step in the 

distribution channel, companies mark 

up the price of the product to cover 

business costs and profit margin. For 

conventional cooking products, the 

main parties in the distribution chain 

are manufacturers and retailers. 

Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturerto-consumer distribution channel 

consisting of three parties: (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. 

The manufacturer markup converts 

MPC to manufacturer selling price 

(MSP). 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 conventional cooking 

products. 

For retailers, DOE developed separate 

markups for baseline products (baseline 

markups) and for the incremental cost of 

more efficient products (incremental 

markups). Incremental markups are 

coefficients that relate the change in the 

MSP of higher-efficiency models to the 

change in the retailer sales price. DOE 

relied on economic data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau to estimate average 

baseline and incremental markups.29

In addition to developing 

manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE 

included sales taxes in the final 

appliance retail prices. DOE used an 

Internet source, the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable 

sales taxes. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of 

markups for conventional ovens. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The energy use analysis provides 

estimates of the annual energy 

consumption of ovens at the considered 

efficiency levels. DOE uses these values 

in the LCC and PBP analyses and in the 

NIA to establish the savings in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33055 

30California Energy Commission, California 

Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study 

(June 2004). 

31 D.S. Parker. ‘‘Research Highlights from a Large 

Scale Residential Monitoring Study in a Hot 

Climate,’’ Proceeding of International Symposium 

on Highly Efficient Use of Energy and Reduction of 

its Environmental Impact (January 2002). 

32California Energy Commission, Residential 

Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) (2009). 

33Parker, D., Fairey, P., Hendron, R., ‘‘Updated 

Miscellaneous Electricity Loads and Appliance 

Energy Usage Profiles for Use in Home Energy 

Ratings, the Building America Benchmark 

Procedures and Related Calculations,’’ Florida Solar 

Energy Center (FSEC) (2010). 

34U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data (2013) (Available 

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

data/2009/). 

35RECS 2009 is based on a sample of 12,083 

households statistically selected to represent 113.6 

million housing units in the United States. RECS 

2009 data are available for 27 geographical areas 

(including 16 large States) (Available at: 

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/). 

36The Monte Carlo process statistically captures 

input variability and distribution without testing all 

possible input combinations. Therefore, while some 

atypical situations may not be captured in the 

analysis, DOE believes the analysis captures an 

adequate range of situations in which the 

conventional cooking products operate. 

consumer operating costs at various 

product efficiency levels. DOE 

developed energy consumption 

estimates for all product classes 

analyzed in the engineering analysis. 

For the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE 

utilized a 2004 California Residential 

Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) 30

and a Florida Solar Energy Center 

(FSEC) study 31 to establish 

representative annual energy use values 

for cooking products. For this NOPR, 

DOE used an update to the California 

RASS 32 and a recent FSEC study 33 to 

establish representative annual energy 

use values for conventional ovens. 

These studies confirmed that annual 

cooking energy use has been 

consistently declining since the late 

1970s. 

DOE’s energy use analysis estimated 

the range of energy use of cooking 

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

actually used by consumers. Because 

energy use by residential cooking 

products varies greatly based on 

consumer usage patterns, DOE 

established a range of energy use. The 

Energy Information Administration 

(EIA)’s 2009 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (RECS 2009) is one 

source for estimating the range of energy 

use for cooking products.34 DOE used 

data from RECS 2009 for this NOPR to 

establish this range.35 Although RECS 

2009 does not provide the annual 

energy consumption of the cooking 

product, it does provide the frequency 

of cooking use. 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. DOE 

therefore relied on California RASS and 

FSEC studies to establish the annual 

energy consumption of a cooking 

product. 

From RECS 2009, DOE developed 

household samples for each product 

class. For each household using a 

conventional cooking product, RECS 

provides data on the frequency of use 

and number of meals cooked in the 

following bins: (1) Less than once per 

week, (2) once per week, (3) a few times 

per week, (4) once per day, (5) two times 

per day, and (6) three or more times per 

day. Thus, DOE utilized the frequency 

of use to define the variability of the 

annual energy consumption. 

Conducting the analysis in this manner 

captures the observed variability in 

annual energy consumption while 

maintaining the average annual energy 

consumption. To determine the 

variability of cooking product energy 

consumption, DOE first equated the 

weighted-average cooking frequency 

from RECS with the average energy use 

values based on CA RASS and FSEC 

studies. DOE then varied the annual 

energy consumption for each RECS 

household based on its reported cooking 

frequency. Thus, DOE utilized the range 

in frequency of use to define the 

variability of the annual energy 

consumption. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD describes 

the energy use analysis in detail. 

AHAM expressed objections to DOE’s 

reliance on RECS 2009 for analyses, 

stating that it is difficult, if not 

impossible, to compare the results to the 

energy use measured in a controlled test 

procedure situation. (AHAM, STD No. 9 

at p. 7) DOE utilized RECS 2009 only to 

characterize variability of usage across 

various consumers. For representative 

energy use DOE relied on other studies 

and surveys to establish baseline energy 

consumption. 

Whirlpool noted that cooking product 

energy use is unique from other major 

appliances in that there is a wide 

variation amongst consumers, with 

consumer behavior as a key 

determinant. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at 

p. 8) DOE acknowledges that consumer 

behavior is a key determinant of the 

eventual energy use by the product. To 

characterize the variability in usage 

across consumers, DOE utilized data 

from RECS 2009, as described above. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

The purpose of the LCC and PBP 

analysis is to evaluate the economic 

impacts of potential energy conservation 

standards for cooking products on 

individual consumers. The LCC is the 

total consumer expense over the life of 

the product, including purchase and 

installation expense and operating costs 

(energy expenditures, repair costs, and 

maintenance costs). The PBP is the 

number of years it would take for the 

consumer to recover the increased costs 

of purchasing a higher efficiency 

product through energy savings. To 

calculate LCC, DOE discounted future 

operating costs to the time of purchase 

and summed them over the lifetime of 

the product. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

an estimate of the base-case product 

efficiency distribution. The base-case 

estimate reflects the market in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards, including the 

market for products that exceed the 

current energy conservation standards. 

In contrast, the PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

DOE calculated the LCC and payback 

periods for conventional ovens for a 

nationally representative set of housing 

units selected from RECS 2009. By using 

a representative sample of households, 

the analysis captured the variability in 

energy consumption and energy prices 

associated with cooking product use. 

For each sample household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

the cooking product and the appropriate 

energy price. DOE first calculated the 

LCC associated with a baseline cooking 

product for each household. To 

calculate the LCC savings and PBP 

associated with products meeting higher 

efficiency standards, DOE substituted 

the baseline unit with more efficient 

designs. 

As part of the LCC and PBP analyses, 

DOE developed data that it used to 

establish product prices, installation 

costs, annual household energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates. Inputs to 

the LCC and PBP analysis are 

categorized as: (1) Inputs for 

establishing the total installed cost and 

(2) inputs for calculating the operating 

costs. DOE models the uncertainty and 

the variability in the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analysis using Monte Carlo 

simulations and probability 

distributions.36

The following sections contain 

comments on the inputs and key 

assumptions of DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analysis and explain how DOE took 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33056 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

37RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Mechanical 

Cost Data (2013) (Available at http://

rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/default.aspx). 

38 DOE characterized the geographic distribution 

into 27 geographic areas to be consistent with the 

27 states and group of states reported in RECS 2009. 

39Utility EIA form 861 submissions for 20132012 

are available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/ 

eia861/. 

40The EIA Natural Gas Monthly publication is 

available at http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/

monthly/. 

41Appliance Magazine, Market Insight. The U.S. 

Appliance Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy 

& Replacement Picture 2012. 

these comments into consideration. 

Chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice contains detailed discussion of 

the methodology and data utilized for 

the LCC and PBP analysis. 

1. Product Costs 

To calculate the prices faced by 

cooking products purchasers, DOE 

multiplied the manufacturing costs 

developed from the engineering analysis 

by the supply chain markups it 

developed (along with sales taxes). 

To project future product prices, DOE 

examined the electric and gas cooking 

products Producer Price Index (PPI) for 

the period 1982–2013. This index, 

adjusted for inflation, shows a declining 

trend. The decline for gas cooking 

products is a little more significant than 

that for electric cooking products (see 

appendix 10–D of the NOPR TSD). 

Based on an exponential fit of the 

adjusted PPIs, DOE utilized a declining 

price trend for both electric and gas 

cooking products as the default case to 

project future product price. 

2. Installation Costs 

Installation costs include labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts. For this NOPR, DOE 

used data from the 2013 RS Means 

Mechanical Cost Data on labor 

requirements to estimate installation 

costs for conventional ovens.37

In general, DOE estimated that 

installation costs would be the same for 

different efficiency levels. 

3. Unit Energy Consumption 

Section IV.E describes the derivation 

of annual energy use for conventional 

ovens. 

DOE did not find any evidence of a 

rebound effect, in which consumers use 

a more efficient appliance more 

intensively, for conventional ovens. 

Cooking practices are affected by 

people’s eating habits, which are 

unlikely to change due to higher 

product efficiency. DOE requests 

comment on its decision to not use a 

rebound effect for cooking products (see 

issue 11 in section VII.E). 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE derived marginal residential 

electricity and natural gas prices for 27 

geographic areas.38

DOE estimated residential electricity 

prices for each of the 27 areas based on 

2013 data from EIA Form 861, Annual 

Electric Power Industry Report.39 DOE 

first estimated a marginal residential 

price for each utility, and then 

calculated an marginal price for each 

area by weighting each utility with 

customers in an area by the number of 

residential customers served in that 

area. 

DOE estimated marginal residential 

natural gas prices in each of the 27 

geographic areas based on 2013 data 

from the EIA publication Natural Gas 

Monthly publication.40 DOE calculated 

a marginal natural gas price for each 

area by first calculating the average 

prices for each State, and then 

calculating a regional price by weighting 

each State in a region by its population. 

To estimate future trends in electricity 

and natural gas prices, DOE used price 

forecasts in AEO 2015. To arrive at 

prices in future years, DOE multiplied 

the marginal prices described above by 

the forecast of annual average changes 

in national-average residential 

electricity and natural gas prices. 

Because AEO 2015 forecasts prices only 

to 2040, DOE used the average rate of 

change during 2025–2040 to estimate 

the price trends beyond 2040. 

Laclede and the American Gas 

Association (AGA) suggest that DOE use 

consumer marginal energy rates when 

evaluating the LCC for each standard 

efficiency level. They noted that this 

approach was recommended by DOE’s 

Advisory Committee on Appliance 

Energy Efficiency Standards in April 

1998. AGA notes that a marginal price 

analysis reflects incremental changes in 

natural gas costs most closely associated 

with changes in the amount of gas 

consumed. (Laclede, STD No. 8 at p. 4 

and AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 2) DOE 

developed estimates of marginal 

electricity and natural gas prices for the 

NOPR analysis. 

The spreadsheet tool used to conduct 

the LCC and PBP analysis allows users 

to select the AEO 2015 high-growth case 

or low-growth case price forecasts to 

estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and 

PBP to different energy price forecasts. 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in the appliance. 

Maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

equipment. 

Typically, small incremental changes 

in product efficiency incur no, or only 

very small, changes in repair and 

maintenance costs over baseline 

products. For all electric cooking 

products, DOE did not include any 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

for products more efficient than baseline 

products. 

For gas ovens, DOE determined the 

repair and maintenance costs associated 

with different types of ignition systems. 

Following the approach adopted in the 

April 2009 Final Rule for electric globar/hot surface ignition systems, DOE 

estimated an average repair cost of $170 

occurring every fifth year during the 

product’s lifetime. For electronic spark 

ignition systems, DOE estimated an 

average repair cost of $206 occurring in 

the tenth year of the product’s life. DOE 

seeks comments from the industry on 

repair cost estimation (see section 

VII.E). 

See chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

information regarding repair and 

maintenance costs. 

6. Product Lifetime 

Equipment lifetime is the age at 

which the equipment is retired from 

service. DOE used a variety of sources 

to establish low, average, and high 

estimates for product lifetime. Utilizing 

data from Appliance Magazine Market 

Insight, DOE established average 

product lifetimes of 15 years for 

conventional electric ovens and 17 years 

for conventional gas ovens.41 DOE 

characterized the product lifetimes with 

Weibull probability distributions. See 

chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice for further details on the sources 

used to develop product lifetimes, as 

well as the use of Weibull distributions. 

7. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

households to estimate the present 

value of future operating costs. DOE 

estimated a distribution of residential 

discount rates for conventional cooking 

products based on consumer financing 

costs and opportunity cost of funds 

related to appliance energy cost savings 

and maintenance costs. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE’s approach 

involved identifying all relevant 

household debt or asset classes in order 

to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings and 

maintenance costs. DOE estimated the 

average percentage shares of the various 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33057 

42Note that two older versions of the SCF are also 

available (1989 and 1992). These surveys were not 

used in this analysis because they do not provide 

all of the necessary types of data (e.g., credit card 

interest rates). DOE determines that the 15-year 

span covered by the six surveys included is 

sufficiently representative of recent debt and equity 

shares and interest rates. 

43For the conventional oven product classes, the 

efficiency levels are based on an oven with a cavity 

volume of 3.9 ft3. As discussed in section IV.C.3, 

DOE developed slopes and intercepts to 

characterize the relationship between IEAC and 

cavity volume for each efficiency level. 

types of debt and equity by household 

income group using data from the 

Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of 

Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 

1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.42

Using the SCF and other sources, DOE 

then developed a distribution of rates 

for each type of debt and asset by 

income group to represent the rates that 

may apply in the year in which 

amended standards would take effect. 

DOE assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of 

the distributions. The average rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity and income groups, weighted by 

the shares of each class, is 5.0 percent. 

See chapter 8 in the NOPR TSD for 

further details on the development of 

consumer discount rates. 

8. Compliance Date 

The compliance date is the date when 

a covered product is required to meet a 

new or amended standard. DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for all 

customers as if each were to purchase 

new equipment in the year that 

compliance with amended standards is 

required. EPCA, as amended, requires 

that not later than 6 years after issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR that includes 

new proposed energy conservation 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE’s 

last final rule for conventional cooking 

products was issued on March 31, 2009. 

Thus, DOE must act by March 31, 2015. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(b). Any amended 

standards would apply to conventional 

cooking products manufactured three 

years after the date on which the final 

amended standard is published. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, for 

purposes of its analysis, DOE assumed 

that a final rule would be published in 

2016, which results in 2019 being the 

first year of compliance with amended 

standards. 

9. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

To accurately estimate the percentage 

of consumers that would be affected by 

a particular standard level, DOE 

estimates the distribution of equipment 

efficiencies that consumers are expected 

to purchase under the base case (i.e., the 

case without amended energy efficiency 

standards). DOE refers to this 

distribution of equipment energy 

efficiencies as a base-case efficiency 

distribution. This approach reflects the 

fact that some consumers may already 

purchase equipment with efficiencies 

greater than the baseline equipment 

levels. 

DOE did not have market data 

reflecting the efficiency distribution of 

cooking products being sold. DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database 

provides information on models of gas 

cooking products that comply with the 

requirement of not having a standing 

pilot. In the absence of data on the 

efficiency distribution of the products 

being sold in the market, DOE 

calculated the market share of available 

efficiency options based on consumer’s 

sensitivity to first cost. DOE treated 

renters and owners as two separate 

entities to establish price sensitivities, 

and used a logit model to characterize 

historical shipments as a function of 

price. DOE used shipments data 

collected by the Market Research 

Magazine and the PPI for household 

cooking appliance manufacturers 

between the years 2002–2012, along 

with the manufacturer cost data from 

the engineering analysis to analyze 

factors that influence consumer 

purchasing decisions of cooking 

products. Because the data are not 

sufficient to capture any definite trend 

in efficiency, DOE used the 2013 

distribution (described in Chapter 8 of 

the NOPR TSD) to represent the market 

in the compliance year (2019). 

Table IV–22 and present market 

shares of the efficiency levels in the 

base case for conventional ovens.43 See 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further 

details on the development of base-case 

market shares. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33058 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

The PBP is the amount of time it takes 

the consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more efficient 

equipment, compared to baseline 

equipment, through energy cost savings. 

PBPs are expressed in years. PBPs 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 are 

the total installed cost of the product to 

the customer for each efficiency level 

and the annual first year operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level. 

The PBP calculation uses the same 

inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 

energy price trends and discount rates 

are not needed. 

11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the test procedure 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN15.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33059 

44Appliance Magazine Market Research. The U.S. 

Appliance Industry: Market Value, Life Expectancy 

& Replacement Picture 2012. 

45Appliance 2011. U.S. Appliance Industry 

Statistical Review: 2000 to YTD 2011. 

46 DOE’s use of MS Excel as the basis for the 

spreadsheet models provides interested parties with 

access to the models within a familiar context. In 

addition, the TSD and other documentation that 

DOE provides during the rulemaking help explain 

the models and how to use them. Interested parties 

can review DOE’s analyses by changing various 

input quantities within the spreadsheet. 

in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 

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

efficiency level, DOE determines the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the quantity of those 

savings in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure, and 

multiplying that amount by the average 

energy price forecast for the year in 

which compliance with the amended 

standards would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of product 

shipments to calculate the national 

impacts of standards on energy use, 

NPV, and future manufacturer cash 

flows. DOE develops shipment 

projections based on historical data and 

an analysis of key market drivers for 

each product. Historical shipments data 

are used to build up an equipment stock 

and also to calibrate the shipments 

model. DOE accounted for three market 

segments: (1) New construction, (2) 

existing homes (i.e., replacing failed 

products), and (3) retired but not 

replaced. DOE used the retired but not 

replaced market segment to calibrate the 

shipments model to historical 

shipments data. 

DOE considered the impacts of 

prospective standards on product 

shipments. The combined market of 

conventional electric and gas cooking 

products is completely saturated. Thus, 

DOE concluded that any price increase 

due to a standard would not impact the 

overall decision to purchase. However, 

DOE did implement an impact due to a 

standard on the efficiency of the 

product that will likely be purchased. 

This impact is captured through a 

change in the efficiency distribution of 

the market. 

Table IV–24 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the shipments analysis for the NOPR. 

TABLE IV–24—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs Approach 

New Construction Shipments ......... Determined by multiplying housing forecasts by forecasted saturation of cooking products for new housing. 

Housing forecasts based on AEO2014 projections. New housing product saturations based on RECS 

2009. Forecasted saturations maintained at 2009 levels. 

Replacements ................................. Determined by tracking total product stock by vintage and establishing the failure of the stock using retirement functions from the LCC and PBP analysis. Retirement functions were based on Weibull lifetime 

distributions. 

Retired but not replaced ................. Used to calibrate shipments model to historical shipments data to account for a decline in the replacement 

shipments. 

Historical Shipments ....................... Data sources include U.S. Statistical Review of Appliance Industry and Appliance Magazine. 

Impacts Due to Efficiency Standards.Not considered due to a fully saturated market. 

Fuel Switching ................................. Not considered, as no significant movement was observed from historical data. 

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 AEO 2015 

through 2040. 

DOE estimated replacements using 

product retirement functions developed 

from product lifetimes. For this NOPR, 

DOE used retirement functions based on 

Weibull distributions. 

To reconcile the historical shipments 

with the model, DOE assumed that 

every retired unit is not replaced. DOE 

attributed the reason for this nonreplacement to building demolition 

occurring at the rate of approximately 

three percent of the retiring units per 

annum over the period 2013–2048. The 

assumed not-replaced rate is distributed 

into 2.8 percent for electric cooking 

products and 4.1 percent for gas cooking 

products. 

DOE allocated shipments to each of 

the eight product classes based on the 

current market share of each class. DOE 

developed the market shares based on 

historical data collected from Appliance 

Magazine Market Research report 44 and 

U.S. Appliance Industry Statistical 

Review.45 The shares are kept constant 

over time. 

AGA voiced concern that the 

establishment of energy conservation 

standards for natural gas cooking 

appliances may result in increased firstcost of these appliances, making them 

less attractive and leading to potential 

fuel switching. (AGA, STD No. 7 at p. 

2) Because this NOPR considers 

standards for both electric and natural 

gas appliances, any increase in the price 

of the appliance would impact cooking 

products of both fuel types. As 

switching typically includes additional 

installation costs for accessing the new 

fuel source (e.g. installation of a gas line 

for gas appliances and installation of 

electrical lines for electrical appliances), 

which would outweigh the incremental 

change in equipment price, DOE 

determined that fuel-switching would 

not occur. 

For further details on the shipments 

analysis, please refer to chapter 9 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings and the national NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels. 

DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet 

model to calculate the national energy 

savings and the consumer costs and 

savings from each TSL.46 The NIA 

calculations are based on the annual 

energy consumption and total installed 

cost data from the energy use analysis 

and the LCC analysis. DOE projected the 

lifetime energy savings, energy cost 

savings, equipment costs, and NPV of 

customer benefits for each product class 

over the lifetime of equipment sold from 

2019 through 2048. 

DOE evaluated the impacts of 

proposed standards for conventional 

ovens by comparing base-case 

projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projections 

characterize energy use and customer 

costs for each product class in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33060 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

absence of proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

Table IV–25 summarizes the key 

inputs for the NIA. The sections 

following provide further details, as 

does chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV–25—INPUTS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Input Description 

Shipments ....................................... Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Compliance date ............................. January 1, 2019. 

Base case efficiency ....................... Based on the consumer choice model. 

Standards case efficiency ............... Based on a ‘‘roll up’’ scenario to establish a 2019 shipment weighted efficiency. 

Annual energy consumption per 

unit.

Calculated for each efficiency level and product class based on inputs from the energy use analysis. 

Total installed cost per unit ............. Calculated by efficiency level using manufacturer selling prices and weighted-average overall markup values. 

Energy expense per unit ................. Annual energy use is multiplied by the corresponding average electricity and gas price.

Escalation of electricity and gas 

prices.

AEO 2015 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation beyond 2040 for electricity and gas prices. 

Electricity site-to-primary energy 

conversion.

A time series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses. 

Discount rates ................................. 3% and 7%. 

Present year .................................... 2014. 

1. Efficiency Trends 

A key component of DOE’s estimates 

of national energy savings and NPV is 

the energy efficiencies forecasted over 

time. For the base case, in the absence 

of any historical efficiency data, and 

absence of an ENERGY STAR program 

for conventional cooking products, DOE 

assumed that efficiency would follow 

the distribution based on consumer 

choice model. The model responds to 

changes in product prices, and 

therefore, is affected by the learning 

effect on the prices. 

To estimate the impact that standards 

would have in the year compliance 

becomes required, DOE used a ‘‘roll-up’’ 

scenario, which assumes that equipment 

efficiencies in the base case that do not 

meet the standard level under 

consideration would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet 

the new standard level and equipment 

shipments at efficiencies above the 

standard level under consideration are 

not affected. In each standards case, the 

efficiency distributions remain constant 

at the 2019 levels for the remainder of 

the shipments forecast period. 

2. National Energy Savings 

For each year in the forecast period, 

DOE calculates the national energy 

savings for each standard level by 

multiplying the shipments of ovens by 

the per-unit annual energy savings. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the annual energy savings over the 

lifetime of all equipment shipped 

during 2019–2048. 

The annual energy consumption per 

unit depends directly on equipment 

efficiency. DOE used the shipmentweighted energy efficiencies associated 

with the base case and each standards 

case, in combination with the annual 

energy use data, to estimate the 

shipment-weighted average annual perunit energy consumption under the base 

case and standards cases. The national 

energy consumption is the product of 

the annual energy consumption per unit 

and the number of units of each vintage, 

which depends on shipments. DOE 

calculates the total annual site energy 

savings for a given standards case by 

subtracting total energy use in the 

standards case from total energy use in 

the base case. Note that total shipments 

are the same in the standards cases as 

in the base case. 

DOE converted the site electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (power sector energy 

consumption) using annual conversion 

factors derived from the AEO 2014 

version of the National Energy Modeling 

System (NEMS). 

The American Public Gas Association 

(APGA), National Propane Gas 

Association (NGPA), AGA, and Laclede 

recommend that DOE incorporate full 

fuel cycle analysis in the conservation 

standard. (APGA, STD No. 6 at p. 2, 

NPGA, STD No. 5 at pp. 1–3, AGA, STD 

No. 7 at p. 2, and Laclede, STD No. 8 

at p. 3) 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 Science, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use, GHG emissions 

and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(August 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in the Federal 

Register in which DOE explained its 

determination that NEMS is the most 

appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and 

its intention to use NEMS for that 

purpose. 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 

The FFC factors incorporate losses in 

production and delivery in the case of 

natural gas (including fugitive 

emissions), and energy used to produce 

and deliver the fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for this 

NOPR, and the FFC multipliers that 

were applied, are described in appendix 

10A of the NOPR TSD. DOE continues 

to work with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) to make available to 

the consumer information regarding 

FFC energy use through the Energy 

Guide label. Table IV–26 through Table 

IV–29 below present the FFC equivalent 

of IAEC for the considered efficiency 

levels. 

TABLE IV–26—CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS: FFC EQUIVALENT OF IAEC 

Standard level 

IAEC—site 

(kWh) 

IAEC—FFC 

(kWh) 

Freestanding Built-in Freestanding Built-in 

Baseline ................................................................... 294 302 962 985 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33061 

TABLE IV–26—CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS: FFC EQUIVALENT OF IAEC—Continued 

Standard level 

IAEC—site 

(kWh) 

IAEC—FFC 

(kWh) 

Freestanding Built-in Freestanding Built-in 

1 ............................................................................... 285 291 930 952 

2 ............................................................................... 272 278 888 909 

3 ............................................................................... 259 265 847 867 

4 ............................................................................... 255 261 833 853 

5 ............................................................................... 245 250 799 819 

6 ............................................................................... 208 213 679 695 

7 ............................................................................... 207 212 677 694 

TABLE IV–27—CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS: FFC EQUIVALENT OF IAEC 

Standard level 

IAEC—site 

(kWh) 

IAEC—FFC 

(kWh) 

Freestanding Built-in Freestanding Built-in 

Baseline ................................................................... 355 361 1,160 1,180 

1 ............................................................................... 345 351 1,128 1,147 

2 ............................................................................... 327 333 1,069 1,087 

3 ............................................................................... 279 284 912 927 

4 ............................................................................... 278 283 909 924 

TABLE IV–28—CONVENTIONAL GAS STANDARD OVENS: FFC EQUIVALENT OF IAEC 

Standard level 

IAEC—site 

(kWh) 

IAEC—FFC 

(kWh) 

Freestanding Built-in Freestanding Built-in 

Baseline ................................................................... 2,118 2,128 2,347 2,358 

1 ............................................................................... 1,649 1,657 1,828 1,836 

2 ............................................................................... 1,615 1,622 1,789 1,798 

3 ............................................................................... 1,491 1,498 1,652 1,660 

4 ............................................................................... 1,415 1,421 1,568 1,575 

5 ............................................................................... 1,401 1,407 1,552 1,559 

6 ............................................................................... 1,356 1,362 1,502 1,509 

7 ............................................................................... 1,347 1,353 1,493 1,500 

TABLE IV–29—CONVENTIONAL GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS: FFC EQUIVALENT OF IAEC 

Standard level 

IAEC—site 

(kWh) 

IAEC—FFC 

(kWh) 

Freestanding Built-in Freestanding Built-in 

Baseline ................................................................... 1,884 1,894 2,087 2,098 

1 ............................................................................... 1,848 1,858 2,048 2,059 

2 ............................................................................... 1,669 1,677 1,849 1,859 

3 ............................................................................... 1,596 1,605 1,769 1,778 

4 ............................................................................... 1,591 1,599 1,763 1,772 

3. Net Present Value of Customer 

Benefit 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are: (1) Total 

annual installed cost; (2) total annual 

savings in operating costs; and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates the lifetime net savings for 

equipment shipped each year as the 

difference between the base case and 

each standards case in total savings in 

lifetime operating costs and total 

increases in installed costs. DOE 

calculates lifetime operating cost 

savings over the life of each considered 

oven unit in conventional cooking 

products shipped during the forecast 

period. 

a. Total Annual Installed Cost 

The total installed cost includes both 

the equipment price and the installation 

cost. For each product class, DOE 

calculated equipment prices by 

efficiency level using manufacturer 

selling prices and weighted-average 

overall markup values. Because DOE 

calculated the total installed cost as a 

function of equipment efficiency, it was 

able to determine annual total installed 

costs based on the annual shipmentweighted efficiency levels determined 

in the shipments model. DOE accounted 

for the repair and maintenance costs 

associated with the ignition systems in 

gas cooking products. 

As noted in section IV.F.1, DOE 

assumed a declining trend in the 

conventional cooking products prices 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33062 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

47U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis,’’ Section E, 

(Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/). 

over the analysis period. In addition, 

DOE conducted sensitivity analyses 

using alternative price trends: One in 

which the rate of decline in prices is 

greater after 2014, and one in which the 

rate of decline is lower. These price 

trends, and the NPV results from the 

associated sensitivity cases, are 

described in appendix 10B of the NOPR 

TSD. 

b. Total Annual Operating Cost Savings 

The per-unit energy savings were 

derived as described in section IV.H.2. 

To calculate future electricity and 

natural gas prices, DOE applied the 

projected trend in national-average 

commercial electricity and natural gas 

price from the AEO 2015 Reference 

case, which extends to 2040, to the 

prices derived in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. DOE used the trend from 2025 

to 2040 to extrapolate beyond 2040. 

DOE requests comment on its approach 

(see issue 9 in section VII.E). 

In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios 

that used the energy price projections in 

the AEO 2015 Low Economic Growth 

and High Economic Growth cases. 

These cases have higher and lower 

energy price trends compared to the 

Reference case. These price trends, and 

the NPV results from the associated 

cases, are described in appendix 10C of 

the NOPR TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net dollar savings in 

future years by a discount factor to 

determine their present value. DOE 

estimates the NPV using both a 3- 

percent and a 7-percent real discount 

rate in accordance with guidance 

provided by the OMB to Federal 

agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.47 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 standards on 

individual consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard level. For this NOPR, DOE 

used RECS 2009 data to analyze the 

potential effect of standards for 

residential cooking products on two 

consumer subgroups: (1) Households 

with low income levels, and (2) 

households comprised of seniors. 

More details on the consumer 

subgroup analysis can be found in 

chapter 11 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE conducted an MIA for residential 

conventional ovens to estimate the 

financial impact of new and amended 

energy conservation standards on 

manufacturers of these products. The 

MIA has both quantitative and 

qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash-flow model customized 

for residential conventional ovens 

covered in this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs are data on the industry 

cost structure, equipment costs, 

shipments, and assumptions about 

manufacturer markups and conversion 

costs. The key MIA output is INPV. DOE 

used the GRIM to calculate cash flows 

using standard accounting principles 

and to compare changes in INPV 

between a base case and various TSLs 

in the standards case. The difference in 

INPV between the base and standards 

cases represents the financial impact of 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards on residential conventional 

oven manufacturers. Different sets of 

assumptions (scenarios) produce 

different INPV results. The qualitative 

part of the MIA addresses factors such 

as manufacturing capacity; 

characteristics of, and impacts on, any 

particular subgroup of manufacturers; 

and impacts on competition. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In the first 

phase DOE prepared an industry 

characterization based on the market 

and technology assessment and publicly 

available information. In the second 

phase, DOE developed an interview 

guide based on the industry financial 

parameters derived in the first phase. In 

the third phase, DOE conducted 

interviews with a variety of residential 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers that account for more 

than 85 percent of domestic residential 

conventional oven sales covered by this 

rulemaking. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics specific to each 

company and obtained each 

manufacturer’s view of the residential 

conventional oven industry as a whole. 

The interviews provided information 

that DOE used to evaluate the impacts 

of new and amended standards on 

manufacturers’ cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and direct 

domestic manufacturing employment 

levels. Section V.B.2 of this NOPR 

contains a discussion on the estimated 

changes in the number of domestic 

employees involved in manufacturing 

residential conventional ovens covered 

by the proposed standards. Section 

IV.J.4 of this NOPR contains a 

description of the key issues 

manufacturers raised during the 

interviews. 

During the third phase, DOE also used 

the results of the industry 

characterization analysis in the first 

phase and feedback from manufacturer 

interviews to group together 

manufacturers that exhibit similar 

production and cost structure 

characteristics. DOE identified one 

manufacturer subgroup for a separate 

impact analysis—small business 

manufacturers—using the small 

business employee threshold of 750 

total employees published by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). This 

threshold includes all employees in a 

business’ parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. Based on this 

classification, DOE identified seven 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers that qualify as small 

businesses. The manufacturer subgroup 

analysis is discussed in greater detail in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD and in 

section VI.B of this notice. 

2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flows over time due to 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. These changes in cash flows 

result in either a higher or lower INPV 

for the standards case compared to the 

base case (the case where a standard is 

not set). The GRIM analysis uses a 

standard annual cash flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer costs, 

markups, shipments, and industry 

financial information as inputs. It then 

models changes in costs, investments, 

and manufacturer margins that result 

from new and amended standards. The 

GRIM uses these inputs to calculate a 

series of annual cash flows beginning 

with the base year of the analysis, 2015, 

and continuing to 2048. DOE computes 

INPV by summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during the 

analysis period. DOE used a real 

discount rate of 9.1 percent for 

residential conventional cooking 

product manufacturers. The discount 

rate estimates were derived from 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33063 

industry corporate annual reports to the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC 10-Ks). During manufacturer 

interviews residential conventional 

oven manufacturers were asked to 

provide feedback on this discount rate. 

Most manufacturers agreed that a 

discount rate of 9.1 was appropriate to 

use for residential conventional oven 

manufacturers. Many inputs into the 

GRIM came from the engineering 

analysis, the NIA, manufacturer 

interviews, and other research 

conducted during the MIA. The major 

GRIM inputs are described in detail in 

the following sections. 

a. Capital and Product Conversion Costs 

DOE expects new and amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential conventional ovens to cause 

manufacturers to incur conversion costs 

to bring their production facilities and 

product designs into compliance with 

the new and amended standards. For 

the MIA, DOE classified these 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Capital conversion costs, and (2) 

product conversion costs. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, certification, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with new 

and amended standards. 

Using feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, DOE conducted a top-down 

analysis to calculate the capital and 

product conversion costs for residential 

conventional oven manufacturers. DOE 

asked manufacturers during interviews 

to estimate the total capital and product 

conversion costs they would need to 

incur to be able to produce each 

residential conventional oven at specific 

ELs. DOE then summed these values 

provided by manufacturers to arrive at 

total top-down industry conversion cost 

for residential conventional ovens. 

See chapter 12 of this NOPR TSD for 

a complete description of DOE’s 

assumptions for the capital and product 

conversion costs. 

b. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

residential conventional ovens is 

typically more expensive than 

manufacturing baseline products due to 

the need for more costly materials and 

components. The higher MPCs for these 

more efficient products can affect the 

revenue, gross margin, and the cash 

flows of residential conventional oven 

manufacturers. DOE developed MPCs 

for each representative unit at each EL 

analyzed. DOE purchased a number of 

units for each product class, then tested 

and tore down those units to create a 

unique bill of materials for the 

purchased unit. Using the bill of 

materials for each residential 

conventional oven, DOE was able to 

create an aggregated MPC based on the 

material costs from the bill of materials, 

the labor costs based on an average labor 

rate and the labor hours necessary to 

manufacture the residential 

conventional oven, and the overhead 

costs, including depreciation, based on 

a markup applied to the material and 

labor costs based on the materials used. 

For more information about MPCs, see 

section IV.C of this NOPR. 

c. Shipment Scenarios 

INPV, the key GRIM output, depends 

on industry revenue, which depends on 

the quantity and prices of residential 

conventional ovens shipped in each 

year of the analysis period. Industry 

revenue calculations require forecasts 

of: (1) The total annual shipment 

volume of residential conventional 

ovens; (2) the distribution of shipments 

across product classes (because prices 

vary by product class); and (3) the 

distribution of shipments across 

efficiency levels (because prices vary 

with efficiency level). 

In the base case shipment analysis, 

DOE develops shipment projections 

based on historical data and an analysis 

of key market drivers for each product. 

In the standards case, DOE modeled a 

roll-up scenario. The roll-up scenario 

represents the case in which all 

shipments in the base case do not meet 

the new and amended standards shift to 

now meet the new and amended 

standard level but do not exceed the 

new and amended standard. Also, no 

shipments that meet or exceed the new 

and amended standards have an 

increase in efficiency due to the new 

and amended standards. 

For a complete description of the 

shipments used in the base and 

standards case see the shipments 

analysis discussion in section IV.G of 

this NOPR. 

d. Markup Scenarios 

As discussed in the previous 

manufacturer production costs section, 

the MPCs for each of the product classes 

of residential conventional ovens are the 

manufacturers’ factory costs for those 

units. These costs include materials, 

direct labor, depreciation, and overhead, 

which are collectively referred to as the 

cost of goods sold (COGS). The MSP is 

the price received by residential 

conventional oven manufacturers from 

their customers, typically retail outlets, 

regardless of the downstream 

distribution channel through which the 

residential conventional ovens are 

ultimately sold. The MSP is not the cost 

the end-user pays for residential 

conventional ovens because there are 

typically multiple sales along the 

distribution chain and various markups 

applied to each sale. The MSP equals 

the MPC multiplied by the manufacturer 

markup. The manufacturer markup 

covers all the residential conventional 

oven manufacturer’s non-production 

costs (i.e., selling, general and 

administrative expenses (SG&A), 

research and development (R&D), and 

interest, etc.) as well as profit. Total 

industry revenue for residential 

conventional oven manufacturers equals 

the MSPs at each EL for each product 

class multiplied by the number of 

shipments at each EL for each product 

class. 

Modifying these manufacturer 

markups in the standards case yields a 

different set of impacts on residential 

conventional oven manufacturers than 

in the base case. For the MIA, DOE 

modeled two standards case markup 

scenarios for residential conventional 

ovens to represent the uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on 

prices and profitability for residential 

conventional oven manufacturers 

following the implementation of new 

energy conservation standards. The two 

scenarios are: (1) A preservation of gross 

margin markup scenario, and (2) a 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. Each scenario leads to 

different manufacturer markup values, 

which, when applied to the inputted 

MPCs, result in varying revenue and 

cash flow impacts on residential 

conventional oven manufacturers. 

The preservation of gross margin 

markup scenario assumes that the COGS 

for each residential conventional oven is 

marked up by a flat percentage to cover 

SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, interest 

expenses, and profit. This allows 

manufacturers to preserve the same 

gross margin percentage in the 

standards case as in the base case 

throughout the entire analysis period. 

This markup scenario represents the 

upper bound of the residential 

conventional oven industry profitability 

in the standards case because residential 

conventional oven manufacturers are 

able to fully pass through additional 

costs due to standards to their 

consumers. 

To derive the preservation of gross 

margin markup percentages for 

residential conventional ovens, DOE 

examined the SEC 10–Ks of all publicly 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33064 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

48 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). DOE’s FFC was 

amended in 2012 for reasons unrelated to the 

inclusion of CH4 and N2O. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012). 

49 DOE did not use AEO 2015 for the emissions 

analysis because it does not provide the side cases 

that DOE uses to derive marginal emissions factors. 

50See http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/

inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 

51U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP– 

42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and 

Area Sources (1998) (Available at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html). 

traded residential conventional oven 

manufacturers to estimate the industry 

average gross margin percentage. DOE 

estimated that the manufacturer markup 

for residential conventional ovens is 

1.20 for all residential conventional 

ovens. Manufacturers were then asked 

about this industry gross margin 

percentage derived from SEC 10–Ks 

during interviews. Residential 

conventional oven manufacturers agreed 

that the 1.20 average industry gross 

margin calculated from SEC 10–Ks was 

an appropriate estimate to use in the 

MIA. DOE seeks comment on the use of 

1.20 for all residential conventional 

ovens. 

DOE included an alternative markup 

scenario, the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, because 

manufacturers stated they do not expect 

to be able to markup the full cost of 

production in the standards case, given 

the highly competitive residential 

conventional oven market. The 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario assumes that manufacturers are 

able to maintain only the base case total 

operating profit in absolute dollars in 

the standards case, despite higher 

production costs and investment. The 

base case total operating profit is 

derived from marking up the COGS for 

each product by the preservation of 

gross margin markup previously 

described. In the standards case for the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, DOE adjusted the residential 

conventional oven manufacturer 

markups in the GRIM at each TSL to 

yield approximately the same earnings 

before interest and taxes in the 

standards case in the year after the 

compliance date of the new and 

amended standards as in the base case. 

Under this scenario, while 

manufacturers are not able to earn 

additional operating profit on higher per 

unit production costs and the increase 

in capital and product investments that 

are required to comply with new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards, they are able to maintain the 

same operating profit in absolute dollars 

in the standards case that was earned in 

the base case. 

The preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario represents the lower 

bound of industry profitability in the 

standards case. This is because 

manufacturers are not able to fully pass 

through the additional costs 

necessitated by new and amended 

energy conservation standards, as they 

are able to do in the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario. 

Therefore, manufacturers earn less 

revenue in the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario than they do in 

the preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

The February 2014 RFI did not focus 

on the MIA or specifically address any 

issues relating to the MIA. Therefore, 

DOE did not receive any MIA specific 

comments from the February 2014 RFI. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE conducted manufacturer 

interviews following publication of the 

February 2014 RFI in preparation for the 

NOPR analysis. In these interviews, 

DOE asked manufacturers to describe 

their major concerns with this 

residential conventional ovens 

rulemaking. The following section 

describes the key issues identified by 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers during these interviews. 

a. Premium Products Tend To Be Less 

Efficient 

Manufacturers stated that their 

premium products are usually less 

efficient than their baseline products. 

For example, premium ovens typically 

have bigger cavities with hidden heat 

sources under the floor of the cavity. 

This makes the heat source less direct, 

therefore decreasing the efficiency. On 

the other hand, baseline ovens tend to 

use direct heating sources which are 

more efficient. Manufacturers warned 

DOE that focusing only on the efficiency 

of residential conventional ovens could 

cause some manufacturers to redesign 

their products in a way that reduces 

consumer satisfaction as consumers 

tend to value premium features. 

b. Product Utility 

Manufacturers stated that energy 

efficiency is not one of the most 

important aspects that consumers value 

when purchasing residential 

conventional ovens. Manufacturers state 

that there are several other factors, such 

as performance and durability, which 

consumers value more when purchasing 

residential conventional ovens. Forcing 

manufacturers to improve the efficiency 

of their products could lead to some 

manufacturers removing premium 

features that consumers desire from 

their products, reducing overall 

consumer utility. 

c. Testing and Certification Burdens 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concern about the testing and 

recertification costs associated with new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for residential conventional 

ovens. Because testing and certification 

costs are incurred on a per model basis, 

if a large number of models are required 

to be redesigned to meet new and 

amended standards, manufacturers 

would be forced to spend a significant 

amount of money testing and certifying 

products that were redesigned due to 

new and amended standards. 

Manufacturers stated that these testing 

and certification costs associated with 

residential conventional ovens could 

significantly strain their limited 

resources if these costs were all incurred 

in the three year time frame from the 

publication of a final rule to the 

implementation of the standards. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and mercury (Hg) from potential 

energy conservation standards for 

conventional ovens. In addition, DOE 

estimated emissions impacts in 

production activities (extracting, 

processing, and transporting fuels) that 

provide the energy inputs to power 

plants. These are referred to as 

‘‘upstream’’ emissions. Together, these 

emissions account for the FFC. In 

accordance with DOE’s FFC Statement 

of Policy,48 the FFC analysis includes 

impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) 

and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which 

are recognized as GHGs. 

The analysis of power sector 

emissions uses marginal emissions 

factors calculated using a methodology 

based on results published for the AEO 

2014 reference case and a set of side 

cases that implement a variety of 

efficiency-related policies.49 The 

methodology is described in chapter 15 

of the NOPR TSD. 

Combustion emissions of CH4 and 

N2O were estimated using emissions 

intensity factors published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), GHG Emissions Factors Hub.50

Site emissions of CO2 and NOX (from 

gas combustion) were estimated using 

emissions intensity factors from an EPA 

publication.51 DOE developed separate 

emissions factors for power sector 

emissions and upstream emissions. The 

method that DOE used to derive 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33065 

52 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex 

and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. Chapter 8. 

53U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP– 

42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and 

Area Sources (1998) (Available at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html). 

54See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

55See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 

U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702 

(U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182). 

56See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 

S.Ct. 1584, 1610 (U.S. 2014). The Supreme Court 

held in part that EPA’s methodology for quantifying 

emissions that must be eliminated in certain States 

due to their impacts in other downwind States was 

based on a permissible, workable, and equitable 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision that 

provides statutory authority for CSAPR. 

57See Georgia v. EPA, Order (D.C. Cir. filed 

October 23, 2014) (No. 11–1302). 

58CSAPR also applies to NOX, and it would 

supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As 

stated previously, the current analysis assumes that 

CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to 

DOE’s analysis of NOX is slight. 

emissions factors is described in chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying the physical 

units by the gas’ global warming 

potential (GWP) over a 100-year time 

horizon. Based on the Fifth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change,52 DOE used GWP 

values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for N2O. 

Because the on-site operation of gas 

cooking products requires use of fossil 

fuels and results in emissions of CO2

and NOX at the sites where these 

appliances are used, DOE also 

accounted for the reduction in these site 

emissions and the associated upstream 

emissions due to potential standards. 

Site emissions were estimated using 

emissions intensity factors from an EPA 

publication.53

EIA prepares the Annual Energy 

Outlook using NEMS. Each annual 

version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO 2014 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, for 

which implementing regulations were 

available as of October 31, 2013. 

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). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern states and DC were also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), which created an allowancebased trading program that operates 

along with the Title IV program. 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR was 

remanded to the EPA by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit but it remained in effect.54 In 

2011, EPA issued a replacement for 

CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.55

The court ordered EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. On April 29, 2014, 

the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 

judgment of the D.C. Circuit and 

remanded the case for further 

proceedings consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s opinion.56 On October 

23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay 

of CSAPR.57 Pursuant to this action, 

CSAPR went into effect (and CAIR 

ceased to be in effect) as of January 1, 

2015. 

Because AEO 2014 was prepared prior 

to the Supreme Court’s opinion, it 

assumed that CAIR remains a binding 

regulation through 2040. Thus, DOE’s 

analysis used emissions factors that 

assume that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the 

regulation in force. However, the 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR is 

not relevant for the purpose of DOE’s 

analysis of emissions impacts from 

energy conservation standards. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. 

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2

emissions will decline significantly as a 

result of the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 

FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final 

MATS rule, EPA established a standard 

for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for 

acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 

and also established a standard for SO2

(a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2016. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, emissions 

will be far below the cap established by 

CAIR, so 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 any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that energy efficiency standards will 

reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and 

beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern states and the 

District of Columbia.58 Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those states covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the states 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in this 

proposed rule for these states. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps. DOE estimated 

mercury emissions reduction using 

emissions factors based on AEO 2014, 

which incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that are 

expected to result from each of the TSLs 

considered. In order to make this 

calculation similar to the calculation of 

the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

equipment shipped in the forecast 

period for each TSL. This section 

summarizes the basis for the monetary 

values used for each of these emissions 

and presents the values considered in 

this rulemaking. 

DOE is relying on a set of values for 

the SCC that was developed by an 

interagency process. A summary of the 

basis for these values is provided below, 

and a more detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

appendix to chapter 14 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33066 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

59National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

60Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf). 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC 

value is meant to reflect the value of 

damages in the United States resulting 

from a unit change in carbon dioxide 

emissions, while a global SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide. 

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions into costbenefit analyses of regulatory actions. 

The estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed the SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on 

a regular basis to consider public 

comments, explore the technical 

literature in relevant fields, and discuss 

key model inputs and assumptions. The 

main objective of this process was to 

develop a range of SCC values using a 

defensible set of input assumptions 

grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key 

uncertainties and model differences 

transparently and consistently inform 

the range of SCC estimates used in the 

rulemaking process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of challenges. A report from the 

National Research Council points out 

that any assessment will suffer from 

uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about: (1) Future emissions 

of greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of 

past and future emissions on the climate 

system; (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment; and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages.59 As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. The agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC values 

appropriate for that year. The NPV of 

the benefits can then be calculated by 

multiplying each of these future benefits 

by an appropriate discount factor and 

summing across all affected years. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

Federal agencies, the Administration 

sought to develop a transparent and 

defensible method, specifically 

designed for the rulemaking process, to 

quantify avoided climate change 

damages from reduced CO2 emissions. 

The interagency group did not 

undertake any original analysis. Instead, 

it combined SCC estimates from the 

existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

the first sustained interagency effort 

within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

After the release of the interim values, 

the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC 

estimates. Specifically, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models commonly used to estimate the 

SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE 

models. These models are frequently 

cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). Each model was given 

equal weight in the SCC values that 

were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

In 2010, the interagency group 

selected four sets of SCC values for use 

in regulatory analyses.60 Three sets of 

values are based on the average SCC 

from three integrated assessment 

models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 

3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth set, 

which represents the 95th-percentile 

SCC estimate across all three models at 

a 3-percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from climate change further out in the 

tails of the SCC distribution. The values 

grow in real terms over time. 

Additionally, the interagency group 

determined that a range of values from 

7 percent to 23 percent should be used 

to adjust the global SCC to calculate 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33067 

61 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

62Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 

2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-ofcarbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf). 

domestic effects,61 although preference 

is given to consideration of the global 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table IV–30 presents the values in the 

2010 interagency group report, which is 

reproduced in appendix 14–A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV–30—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

The SCC values used were generated 

using the most recent versions of the 

three integrated assessment models that 

have been published in the peerreviewed literature.62 Table IV–31 

shows the updated sets of SCC estimates 

from the 2013 interagency update in 

five-year increments from 2010 to 2050. 

Appendix 14–B of the NOPR TSD 

provides the full set of values. The 

central value that emerges is the average 

SCC across models at 3-percent discount 

rate. However, for purposes of capturing 

the uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, the interagency group 

emphasizes the importance of including 

all four sets of SCC values. 

TABLE IV–31—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

AHAM suggested that DOE rely on the 

2010 estimates for SCC until it has 

resolved all comments on the derivation 

of the SCC estimates from the 2013 

report. (AHAM, STD No. 9, at p. 8) The 

2013 report provides an update of the 

SCC estimates based solely on the latest 

peer-reviewed version of the models, 

replacing model versions that were 

developed up to ten years ago in a 

rapidly evolving field. It does not revisit 

other assumptions with regard to the 

discount rate, reference case socioeconomic and emission scenarios, or 

equilibrium climate sensitivity. 

Improvements in the way damages are 

modeled are confined to those that have 

been incorporated into the latest 

versions of the models by the 

developers themselves in the peerreviewed literature. Given the above, 

using the 2010 estimates would be 

inconsistent with DOE’s objective of 

using the best available information in 

its analyses. 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of analytical 

challenges that are being addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the Federal agencies participating in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33068 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

63http://www2.epa.gov/benmap/sector-basedpm25-benefit-ton-estimates. 

64 DOE did not use AEO 2015 for the analysis 

because it does not provide the side cases that DOE 

uses to derive marginal impact factors. 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The interagency group intends to 

periodically review and revise those 

estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report, 

adjusted to 2014$ using the Gross 

Domestic Product price deflator. For 

each of the four SCC cases specified, the 

values used for emissions in 2015 were 

$12.2, $41.2, $63.4, and $121 per metric 

ton avoided (values expressed in 

2014$). DOE derived values after 2050 

using the relevant growth rates for the 

2040–2050 period in the interagency 

update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. 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 

SCC values in each case. 

DOE acknowledges the limitations of 

the SCC estimates, which are discussed 

in detail in the 2010 interagency group 

report. Specifically, uncertainties in the 

assumptions regarding climate 

sensitivity, as well as other model 

inputs such as economic growth and 

emissions trajectories, are discussed and 

the reasons for the specific input 

assumptions chosen are explained. 

However, the three integrated 

assessment models used to estimate the 

SCC are frequently cited in the peerreviewed literature and were used in the 

last assessment of the IPCC. In addition, 

new versions of the models that were 

used in 2013 to estimate revised SCC 

values were published in the peerreviewed literature (see appendix 14B of 

the NOPR TSD for discussion). 

Although uncertainties remain, the 

revised estimates that were issued in 

November, 2013 are based on the best 

available scientific information on the 

impacts of climate change. The current 

estimates of the SCC have been 

developed over many years, using the 

best science available, and with input 

from the public. In November 2013, 

OMB announced a new opportunity for 

public comment on the interagency 

technical support document underlying 

the revised SCC estimates. 78 FR 70586 

(Nov. 26, 2013). OMB is reviewing 

comments and considering whether 

further revisions to the SCC estimates 

are warranted. DOE stands ready to 

work with OMB and the other members 

of the interagency working group on 

further review and revision of the SCC 

estimates as appropriate. 

In addition, it is important to note 

that the monetized benefits of carbon 

emission reductions are one factor that 

DOE considers in its evaluation of the 

economic justification of proposed 

standards. As shown in Table I.4, the 

benefits of these standards in terms of 

consumer operating cost savings exceed 

the incremental costs of the standardscompliant products. The benefits of CO2

emission reductions were considered by 

DOE, but were not determinative in 

DOE’s decision to adopt these 

standards. 

2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants 

As noted above, DOE has taken into 

account how amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

site NOX emissions nationwide and 

increase power sector NOX emissions in 

those 22 States not affected by the CAIR. 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

net NOX emissions reductions resulting 

from each of the TSLs considered for 

this NOPR based on estimates 

developed by EPA for 2016, 2020, 2025, 

and 2030.63 The values reflect estimated 

mortality and morbidity per ton of 

directly emitted NOX reduced by 

electricity generating units. EPA 

developed estimates using a 3-percent 

and a 7-percent discount rate to 

discount future emissions-related costs. 

The values in 2016 are $5,562/ton using 

a 3-percent discount rate and $4,920/ton 

using a 7-percent discount rate (2014$). 

DOE extrapolated values after 2030 

using the average annual rate of growth 

in 2016–2030. DOE multiplied the 

emissions reduction (tons) in each year 

by the associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included monetization of these 

emissions in the current analysis. DOE 

requests comment on its approach to 

monetizing emissions reductions for 

cooking products (see issue 12 in 

section VII.E). 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In the utility 

impact analysis, DOE analyzes the 

changes in installed electricity capacity 

and generation that would result for 

each TSL. The utility impact analysis is 

based on published output from the 

NEMS associated with AEO 2014. 

NEMS produces the AEO reference case 

as well as a number of side cases that 

estimate the economy-wide impacts of 

changes to energy supply and demand. 

DOE uses those published side cases 

that incorporate efficiency-related 

policies to estimate the marginal 

impacts of reduced energy demand on 

the utility sector.64 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 energy savings calculated 

in the NIA to provide estimates of 

selected utility impacts of new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD 

describes the utility impact analysis in 

further detail. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include direct and indirect impacts. 

Direct employment impacts are any 

changes in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the equipment subject 

to standards; 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 equipment. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the jobs created or eliminated 

in the national economy, other than in 

the manufacturing sector being 

regulated, due to: (1) Reduced spending 

by end users on energy; (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry; (3) increased consumer 

spending on the purchase of new 

equipment; and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33069 

65M.J. Scott, O.V. Livingston, P.J. Balducci, J.M. 

Roop, and R.W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL–18412, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory (2009) (Available at: 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/

technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf). 

66For the conventional oven product classes, the 

efficiency levels are based on an oven with a cavity 

volume of 3.9 ft. As discussed in section I.A.1.c, 

DOE developed slopes and intercepts to 

characterize the relationship between IEAC and 

cavity volume for each efficiency level. 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. 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, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment may increase 

because of shifts in economic activity 

resulting from amended standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this NOPR using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies, Version 3.1.1 (ImSET).65

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 the 

187 sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands the uncertainties involved 

in projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run. Therefore, DOE 

generated results for near-term 

timeframes, where these uncertainties 

are reduced. For more details on the 

employment impact analysis, see 

chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD. 

V. Analytical Results 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to potential energy conservation 

standards for conventional ovens. It 

addresses the TSLs examined by DOE 

and the projected impacts of each of 

these levels if adopted as energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

ovens. Additional details regarding 

DOE’s analyses are contained in the 

NOPR TSD supporting this notice. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of three TSLs for conventional 

ovens. These TSLs were developed 

using combinations of efficiency levels 

for the product classes analyzed by 

DOE. DOE presents the results for those 

TSLs in this proposed rule. The results 

for all efficiency levels that DOE 

analyzed are in the NOPR TSD. 

Table V–1. and Table V–2. presents 

the TSLs and the corresponding 

efficiency levels for conventional 

ovens.66 TSL 3 represents the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

all product classes. TSL 2 comprises 

efficiency levels for all product classes 

providing the maximum NES with 

maximum NPV. TSL 1 was configured 

with standby levels with maximum 

NES. 

TABLE V–1—SUMMARY OF TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR OVENS, ELECTRIC

TSL 

Electric standard ovens, 

free-standing 

Electric standard ovens, 

built-in/slide-in 

Electric self-clean ovens, 

free-standing 

Electric self-clean ovens, 

built-in/slide-in 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC 

(kWh/yr) 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC 

(kWh/yr) 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC 

(kWh/yr) 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC (kWh/ 

yr) 

1 ....................................... 1 284.6 1 291.4 1 345.1 1 351.0 

2 ....................................... 3 259.2 3 265.4 1 345.1 1 351.0 

3 ....................................... 7 207.3 7 212.2 4 278.1 4 282.9 

TABLE V–2—SUMMARY OF TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR OVENS, GAS

TSL 

Gas standard ovens, 

free-standing 

Gas standard ovens, 

built-in/slide-in 

Gas self-clean ovens, 

free-standing 

Gas self-clean ovens, 

built-in/slide-in 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC 

(kBtu/yr) 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC 

(kBtu/yr) 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC 

(kBtu/yr) 

Efficiency 

level 

IAEC 

(kBtu/yr) 

1 ....................................... Baseline 2,118.2 Baseline 2,128.1 1 1,848.2 1 1,858.0 

2 ....................................... 4 1,414.8 4 1,421.5 2 1,668.7 2 1,677.5 

3 ....................................... 7 1,347.0 7 1,353.3 4 1,591.0 4 1,599.4 

Additionally, Table V–3 to Table V– 

6 illustrate the design and performance 

related changes that are assumed for 

each TSL for each product class. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33070 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–3—SUMMARY OF TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS, ELECTRIC STANDARD

TSL 

Electric standard ovens, free-standing Electric standard ovens, built-in/slide-in 

Efficiency 

level Design option Efficiency level Design option 

1 ................................ 1 1. SMPS. 1 1. SMPS. 

2 ................................ 3 1. SMPS. 

2. Reduced Vent Rate. 

3. Improved Insulation. 

3 1. SMPS. 

2. Reduced Vent Rate. 

3. Improved Insulation. 

3 ................................ 7 1. SMPS. 

2. Reduced Vent Rate. 

3. Improved Insulation. 

7 1. SMPS. 

2. Reduced Vent Rate. 

3. Improved Insulation. 

4. Improved Door Seals. 4. Improved Door Seals. 

5. Forced Convection. 5. Forced Convection. 

6. Oven Separator. 6. Oven Separator. 

7. Reduced Conduction Losses. 7. Reduced Conduction Losses. 

TABLE V–4—SUMMARY OF TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS, ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN

TSL 

Electric self-clean ovens, free-standing Electric self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in 

Efficiency 

level Design option Efficiency level Design option 

1 ................................ 1 1. SMPS. 1 1. SMPS. 

2 ................................ 1 1. SMPS. 1 1. SMPS. 

3 ................................ 4 1. SMPS. 

2. Forced Convection. 

4 1. SMPS. 

2. Forced Convection. 

3. Oven Separator. 

4. Reduced Conduction Losses. 

3. Oven Separator. 

4. Reduced Conduction Losses. 

TABLE V–5—SUMMARY OF TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS, GAS STANDARD

TSL 

Gas standard ovens, free-standing Gas standard ovens, built-in/slide-in 

Efficiency 

level Design option Efficiency level Design option 

1 ................................ Baseline Baseline 

2 ................................ 4 1. Optimized Burner/Cavity. 

2. SMPS. 

4 1. Optimized Burner/Cavity. 

2. SMPS. 

3. Electric Spark Ignition. 

4. Improved Insulation. 

3. Electric Spark Ignition. 

4. Improved Insulation. 

3 ................................ 7 1. SMPS. 

2. Optimized Burner/Cavity. 

3. Electric Spark Ignition. 

7 1. SMPS. 

2. Optimized Burner/Cavity. 

3. Electric Spark Ignition. 

4. Improved Insulation. 

5. Improved Door Seals. 

6. Forced Convection. 

7. Reduced Conduction Losses. 

4. Improved Insulation. 

5. Improved Door Seals. 

6. Forced Convection. 

7. Reduced Conduction Losses. 

TABLE V–6—SUMMARY OF TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS, GAS SELF-CLEAN

TSL 

Gas self-clean ovens, free-standing Gas self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in 

Efficiency 

level Design option Efficiency level Design option 

1 ................................ 1 1. SMPS. 1 1. SMPS. 

2 ................................ 2 1. SMPS. 

2. Electronic Spark Ignition. 

2 1. SMPS. 

2. Electronic Spark Ignition. 

3 ................................ 4 1. SMPS. 

2. Electronic Spark Ignition. 

3. Forced Convection. 

4. Reduced Conduction Losses. 

4 1. SMPS. 

2. Electronic Spark Ignition. 

3. Forced Convection. 

4. Reduced Conduction Losses. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33071 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on conventional oven consumers by 

looking at the effects potential amended 

standards would have on the LCC and 

PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of 

potential standards on consumer 

subgroups. These analyses are discussed 

below. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

Purchase price increases, and (2) 

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 savings, 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 

NOPR TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V–7 through Table V–22 show 

the LCC and PBP results for all 

efficiency levels considered for each 

conventional oven product class. In the 

first of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

baseline product. In the second table, 

the LCC savings are measured relative to 

the base-case efficiency distribution in 

the compliance year (see section IV.F.8 

of this notice). 

TABLE V–7—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC1 ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS, FREESTANDING

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ............................................................... 1 $558 $16 $191 $748 0.9 

2 ............................................................... 3 568 15 174 742 4.0 

3 ............................................................... 7 653 12 142 795 7.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V–8—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC1 ELECTRIC

STANDARD OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percentage 

of consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1 0 $13.96 

2 ................................................................................................................................................. 3 12 15.18 

3 ................................................................................................................................................. 7 82 (37.60 ) 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V–9—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC2 ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/

SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Average Costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ............................................................... 1 $584 $16 $190 $775 0.9 

2 ............................................................... 3 594 15 174 768 4.0 

3 ............................................................... 7 680 12 142 821 17.5 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33072 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–10—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC2 ELECTRIC

STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percentage 

of consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1 0 $14.11 

2 ................................................................................................................................................. 3 12 15.25 

3 ................................................................................................................................................. 7 82 (37.64 ) 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V–11—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC3 ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREESTANDING

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1,2 ............................................................ 1 $602 $22 $251 $853 0.9 

3 ............................................................... 4 686 18 211 897 18.1 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V–12—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC3 ELECTRIC

SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percentage 

of consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1,2 .............................................................................................................................................. 1 0 $14.10 

3 ................................................................................................................................................. 4 76 (27.79 ) 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V–13—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC4 ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS, BUILTIN/SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1,2 ............................................................ 1 $628 $22 $252 $880 0.9 

3 ............................................................... 4 712 18 212 924 18.1 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33073 

TABLE V–14 AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC4 ELECTRIC SELFCLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percentage 

of consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1,2 .............................................................................................................................................. 1 0 $14.20 

3 ................................................................................................................................................. 4 76 (27.80 ) 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V–15—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC5 GAS STANDARD OVENS, FREESTANDING

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ............................................................... Baseline $602 $20 $600 $1,202 ........................

2 ............................................................... 4 619 9 277 896 1.7 

3 ............................................................... 7 656 9 277 933 5.3 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V–16—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC5 GAS

STANDARD OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percentage 

of consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1 ................................................................................................................................................. Baseline 0% ..........................

2 ................................................................................................................................................. 4 0 $289.73 

3 ................................................................................................................................................. 7 24 178.91 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V–17—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC6 GAS STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/

SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ............................................................... Baseline $628 $20 $600 $1,228 ........................

2 ............................................................... 4 645 9 277 922 1.7 

3 ............................................................... 7 682 9 277 959 5.3 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33074 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–18—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC6 GAS

STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percentage 

of consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1 ................................................................................................................................................. Baseline 0 ..........................

2 ................................................................................................................................................. 4 0 $289.77 

3 ................................................................................................................................................. 7 24 178.92 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V–19—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC7 GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREESTANDING

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ............................................................... 1 $718 $20 $612 $1,329 0.8 

2 ............................................................... 2 726 13 334 1,060 1.2 

3 ............................................................... 4 762 13 333 1,094 5.4 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative 

to the baseline product. 

TABLE V–20—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC7 GAS SELFCLEAN OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percentage 

of consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1 0 $18.02 

2 ................................................................................................................................................. 2 0 282.80 

3 ................................................................................................................................................. 4 27 165.73 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

TABLE V–21—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR PC8 GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/

SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency level 

Average costs 

2014$ Simple 

payback 

years Installed cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ............................................................... 1 $744 $20 $612 $1,355 0.8 

2 ............................................................... 2 752 13 334 1,086 1.2 

3 ............................................................... 4 788 13 333 1,120 5.4 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33075 

TABLE V–22—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PC8 GAS SELFCLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Percent of 

consumers 

that 

experience 

Average 

savings * 

Net cost 2014$ 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 1 0 $18.03 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 2 0 282.85 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 4 27 165.75 

* The calculation does not include households with zero LCC savings (no impact). 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.I of this 

notice, DOE determined the impact of 

the considered TSLs on low-income 

households and senior-only households. 

Table V–23 through Table V–30 

compare the average LCC savings and 

PBP at each efficiency level for the two 

consumer subgroups, along with the 

average LCC savings for the entire 

sample. In most cases, the average LCC 

savings and PBP for low-income 

households and senior-only households 

at the considered efficiency levels are 

not substantially different from the 

average for all households. Chapter 11 

of the NOPR TSD presents the complete 

LCC and PBP results for the subgroups. 

TABLE V–23—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PC1 

ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ......................................................... $13.88 $14.00 $13.96 0.9 0.9 0.9 

2 ......................................................... 18.70 12.28 15.18 3.6 4.4 4.0 

3 ......................................................... (28.75 ) (45.09 ) (37.60 ) 14.9 20.6 17.5 

TABLE V–24—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PC2 

ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ......................................................... $14.06 $14.11 $14.11 0.9 0.9 0.9 

2 ......................................................... 18.79 12.34 15.25 3.6 4.4 4.0 

3 ......................................................... (28.80 ) (45.13 ) (37.64 ) 14.9 20.6 17.5 

TABLE V–25—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS PC3 

ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1, 2 ..................................................... $13.98 $14.19 $14.10 0.9 0.9 0.9 

3 ......................................................... (18.98 ) (32.84 ) (27.79 ) 15.2 20.3 18.1 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33076 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–26—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS PC4 

ELECTRIC SELF-CLEAN OVENS, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1, 2 ..................................................... $14.11 $14.27 $14.20 0.9 0.9 0.9 

3 ......................................................... (18.99 ) (32.84 ) (27.80 ) 15.2 20.3 18.1 

TABLE V–27—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS PC5 GAS

STANDARD OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ............................................................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ........................ ........................ ........................

2 ............................................................... 314.79 282.03 289.73 1.4 1.8 1.7 

3 ............................................................... 197.33 173.10 178.91 4.4 5.7 5.3 

TABLE V–28—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PC6 

GAS STANDARD OVEN, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ............................................................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ........................ ........................ ........................

2 ............................................................... 314.84 282.07 289.77 1.4 1.8 1.7 

3 ............................................................... 197.34 173.11 178.92 4.4 5.7 5.3 

TABLE V–29—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PC7 

GAS SELF-CLEAN OVENS, FREE-STANDING

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ............................................................... $17.28 $18.39 $18.02 0.8 0.7 0.8 

2 ............................................................... 298.61 278.34 282.80 1.0 1.3 1.2 

3 ............................................................... 176.87 162.47 165.73 4.7 5.7 5.4 

TABLE V–30—COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PC8 

GAS SELF-CLEAN OVEN, BUILT-IN/SLIDE-IN

TSL 

Average life-cycle cost savings 

(2014$) 

Simple payback period 

(years) 

Low-income 

households 

Senior-only 

households All households Low-income households 

Senior-only 

households All households 

1 ............................................................... $17.30 $18.40 $18.03 0.8 0.7 0.8 

2 ............................................................... 298.68 278.39 282.85 1.0 1.3 1.2 

3 ............................................................... 176.89 162.48 165.75 4.7 5.7 5.4 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed above, EPCA provides 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 the 

considered standard levels, DOE used 

discrete values rather than distributions 

for input values, and, as required by 

EPCA, based the energy use calculation 

on the DOE test procedures for 

conventional cooking products. As a 

result, DOE calculated a single 

rebuttable presumption payback value, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33077 

and not a distribution of payback 

periods, for each efficiency level. 

Table V–31 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs. While DOE examined 

the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it 

considered whether the standard levels 

considered for this rulemaking 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). The results of 

that analysis serve as the basis for DOE 

to evaluate the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). 

TABLE V–31—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: REBUTTABLE PBPS

(Years) 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ........................................................................................ 0.9 2.3 8.5 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ...................................................................................... 0.8 2.3 8.3 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ..................................................................................... 0.9 0.9 8.4 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .................................................................................... 0.9 0.9 8.3 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................................................. .................... 2.4 7.0 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................................................... .................... 2.4 6.9 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ........................................................................................... 3.1 4.6 15.3 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ......................................................................................... 3.1 4.6 15.2 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of residential 

conventional ovens. The following 

sections describe the expected impacts 

on residential conventional oven 

manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 

of this NOPR TSD explains the MIA in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

Table V–32 through Table V–33 

depict the financial impacts 

(represented by changes in INPV) of 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards on residential conventional 

oven manufacturers as well as the 

conversion costs that DOE estimates 

manufacturers would incur at each TSL. 

To evaluate the range of cash flow 

impacts on the residential conventional 

oven industry, DOE modeled two 

markup scenarios that correspond to the 

range of anticipated market responses to 

new and amended standards. Each 

markup scenario results in a unique set 

of cash flows and corresponding 

industry values at each TSL. 

In the following discussion, the INPV 

results refer to the difference in industry 

value between the base case and the 

standards case that result from the sum 

of discounted cash flows from the base 

year (2015) through the end of the 

analysis period. The results also discuss 

the difference in cash flows between the 

base case and the standards case in the 

year before the compliance date for new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. This figure represents the 

size of the required conversion costs 

relative to the cash flow generated by 

the residential conventional oven 

industry in the absence of new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. In the engineering analysis, 

DOE enumerates common technology 

options that achieve the efficiencies for 

each of the product classes. For 

descriptions of these technology options 

and the required efficiencies at each 

TSL, see section IV.C and section V.A 

respectively of this NOPR. 

To assess the upper (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers, DOE modeled a 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. This scenario assumes that in 

the standards case, manufacturers 

would be able to pass along all the 

higher production costs required for 

more efficient products to their 

consumers. Specifically, the industry 

would be able to maintain its average 

base case gross margin (as a percentage 

of revenue) despite the higher product 

costs in the standards case. In general, 

the larger the product price increases, 

the less likely manufacturers are to 

achieve the cash flow from operations 

calculated in this scenario because it is 

less likely that manufacturers would be 

able to fully mark up these larger cost 

increases. 

To assess the lower (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers, DOE modeled the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. This scenario represents the 

lower end of the range of potential 

impacts on manufacturers because no 

additional operating profit is earned on 

the higher product costs, eroding profit 

margins as a percentage of total revenue. 

Table V–32 and Table V–33 present 

the projected results for residential 

conventional ovens under the 

preservation of gross margin and 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenarios. DOE examined results for all 

product classes together since most 

manufacturers produce both gas and 

electric ovens. 

TABLE V–32—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVENS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV .............................................. (2014$ millions) ............................. 783.5 762.8 702.6 140.6 

Change in INPV ............................. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ (20.7 ) (80.9 ) (642.9 ) 

(%) ................................................. ........................ (2.6 ) (10.3 ) (82.0 ) 

Product Conversion Costs ............. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ 4.3 67.9 401.5 

Capital Conversion Costs .............. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ 9.0 42.0 528.0 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33078 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–32—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVENS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO—Continued 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Total Conversion Costs ................. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ 13.3 109.9 929.5 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

TABLE V–33—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVENS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV .............................................. (2014$ millions) ............................. 783.5 762.1 697.1 56.0 

Change in INPV ............................. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ (21.4 ) (86.4 ) (727.5 ) 

(%) ................................................. ........................ (2.7 ) (11.0 ) (92.9 ) 

Product Conversion Costs ............. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ 4.3 67.9 401.5 

Capital Conversion Costs .............. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ 9.0 42.0 528.0 

Total Conversion Costs ................. (2014$ millions) ............................. ........................ 13.3 109.9 929.5 

TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at 

baseline for two product classes (gas 

standard ovens, free-standing; and gas 

standard ovens, built-in/slide-in), and 

EL 1 for six product classes (electric 

standard ovens, free-standing; electric 

standard ovens, built-in/slide-in; 

electric self-clean ovens, free-standing; 

electric self-clean ovens, built-in/slidein; gas self-clean ovens, free-standing; 

and gas self-clean ovens, built-in/slidein). At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV range from ¥$21.4 million to 

¥$20.7 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥2.7 percent to ¥2.6 percent. At TSL 

1, industry free cash flow (operating 

cash flow minus capital expenditures) is 

estimated to decrease to $52.1 million, 

or a drop of 14.3 percent, compared to 

the base-case value of $60.8 million in 

2018, the year leading up to new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE does not 

anticipate that manufacturers would 

lose a significant portion of their INPV 

at this TSL. DOE projects that in the 

expected year of compliance (2019), 100 

percent of gas standard oven, freestanding shipments; and gas standard 

oven, built-in/slide-in shipments would 

meet or exceed the efficiency levels 

required at TSL 1. Meanwhile in 2019, 

60 percent of electric standard oven, 

free-standing shipments; 60 percent of 

electric standard oven, built-in/slide-in 

shipments; 53 percent of electric selfclean oven, free-standing shipments; 53 

electric self-clean oven, built-in/slide-in 

shipments; 52 percent of gas self-clean 

oven, free-standing shipments; and 52 

percent of gas self-clean oven, built-in/ 

slide-in shipments would meet the 

efficiency levels at TSL 1. 

DOE expects conversion costs to be 

small at TSL 1 because the design 

changes prescribed at this TSL only 

affect standby mode power 

consumption and do not apply to active 

mode power consumption. DOE expects 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers to incur $4.3 million in 

product conversion costs for product 

redesigns that will convert residential 

conventional ovens from using linear 

power supply to switch mode power 

supply to reduce standby power 

consumption. DOE expects $9.0 million 

in capital conversion costs for 

manufacturers to upgrade production 

lines and retool equipment associated 

with achieving this reduction in standby 

power. 

At TSL 1, under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increases very slightly by approximately 

0.1 percent relative to the base-case 

MPC. This extremely slight price 

increase is outweighed by the $13.3 

million in conversion costs estimated at 

TSL 1, resulting in slightly negative 

INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the 

preservation of gross margin markup 

scenario. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same nominal operating profit 

as would be earned in the base case, but 

manufacturers do not earn additional 

profit from their investments. The very 

slight increase in the shipment 

weighted-average MPC is again 

outweighed by a slightly lower average 

manufacturer markup (slightly smaller 

than the 1.20 manufacturer markup 

used in the base case) and $13.3 million 

in conversion costs, resulting in slightly 

negative impacts at TSL 1. 

TSL 2 sets the efficiency level at EL 

1 for two product classes (electric selfclean ovens, free-standing; and electric 

self-clean ovens, built-in/slide-in), EL 2 

for two product classes (gas self-clean 

ovens, free-standing; and gas self-clean 

ovens, built-in/slide-in), EL 3 for two 

product classes (electric standard ovens, 

free-standing and electric standard 

ovens, built-in/slide-in); and EL 4 for 

two product classes (gas standard ovens, 

free-standing and gas standard ovens, 

built-in/slide-in). At TSL 2, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$86.4 million to ¥$80.9 million, 

or a change in INPV of ¥11.0 percent 

to ¥10.3 percent. At this standard level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease to $17.6, or a drop of 71.0 

percent, compared to the base-case 

value of $60.8 million in 2018. 

Percentage impacts on INPV are 

moderately negative at TSL 2. While the 

$109.9 million in industry conversion 

costs represent a significant investment 

for manufacturers, DOE does not 

anticipate that manufacturers would 

lose a significant portion of their INPV 

at this TSL since the base case INPV for 

manufacturers is slightly less than $800 

million. DOE projects that in 2019, 40 

percent of electric standard oven, freestanding shipments; 40 percent of 

electric standard oven, built-in/slide-in 

shipments; 53 percent of electric selfclean oven, free-standing shipments; 53 

percent of electric self-clean oven, builtin/slide-in shipments; 32 percent of gas 

standard oven, free-standing shipments; 

32 percent of gas standard oven, builtin/slide-in shipments; 39 percent of gas 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33079 

self-clean oven, free-standing 

shipments; and 39 percent of gas selfclean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments 

would meet or exceed the efficiency 

levels at TSL 2. 

While DOE expects conversion costs 

to be a large investment at TSL 2, the 

much larger base case INPV reduces the 

overall INPV impact on a percentage 

basis at TSL 2. DOE expects that 

product conversion costs will 

significantly rise from $4.3 million at 

TSL 1 to $67.9 million at TSL 2 for 

extensive product redesigns and testing. 

Capital conversion costs will also 

significantly increase from $9.0 million 

at TSL 1 to $42.0 million at TSL 2 to 

upgrade production equipment to 

accommodate for added or redesigned 

features in each product class. The large 

conversion costs at TSL 2 are driven by 

reduce vent rate and improve insulation 

in the electric oven product classes, and 

conversion from glo-bar to electronic 

spark ignition systems in the gas oven 

product classes. 

At TSL 2, under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

shipment weighted-average MPC only 

slightly increases by 0.9 percent, 

relative to the base-case MPC. In this 

scenario, INPV impacts are moderately 

negative because manufacturers incur 

sizable conversion costs ($109.9 

million) and are not able to recover 

much of those conversion costs through 

the slight increase in the shipment 

weighted-average MPC at TSL 2. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 0.9 percent 

shipment weighted-average MPC 

increase is outweighed by a slightly 

lower average manufacturer markup 

(slightly smaller than the 1.20 

manufacturer markup used in the base 

case) and $109.9 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in moderately negative 

INPV impacts at TSL 2. 

TSL 3 sets the efficiency level at max 

tech for all product classes. At TSL 3, 

DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$727.5 million to ¥$642.9 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥92.9 

percent to ¥82.0 percent. At this 

standard level, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 635.3 percent to ¥$325.5 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $60.8 million in 2018. 

At TSL 3 conversion costs 

significantly increase causing free cash 

flow to become significantly negative in 

the year leading up to energy 

conservation standards and cause 

manufacturers to loss a substantial 

amount of INPV. Also, the percent 

change in INPV at TSL 3 is significantly 

negative due to the extremely large 

conversion costs. Manufacturers at this 

TSL would have a very difficult time in 

the short term to make the necessary 

investments to comply with new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

prior to when standards went into 

effect. Also, the long-term profitability 

of residential conventional oven 

manufacturers could be seriously 

jeopardized as some manufacturers 

would struggle to comply with 

standards at this TSL. 

A high percentage of total shipments 

will need to be redesigned to meet 

efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 3. 

DOE projects that in 2019, only 7 

percent of electric standard oven, freestanding shipments; 7 percent of electric 

standard oven, built-in/slide-in 

shipments; 12 percent of electric selfclean oven, free-standing shipments; 12 

percent of electric self-clean oven, builtin/slide-in shipments; 8 percent of gas 

standard oven, free-standing shipments; 

8 percent of gas standard oven, built-in/ 

slide-in shipments; 13 percent of gas 

self-clean oven, free-standing 

shipments; and 13 percent of gas selfclean oven, built-in/slide-in shipments 

would meet the efficiency levels 

prescribed at TSL 3. 

DOE expects significant conversion 

costs at TSL 3, which represents max 

tech. DOE expects product conversion 

costs to significantly increase from 

$67.9 million at TSL 2 to $401.5 million 

at TSL 3. Large increases in product 

conversion are due to the vast majority 

of shipments needing extensive redesign 

as well as a significant increase in 

testing and recertification for redesigned 

products. DOE estimates that capital 

conversion costs will also significantly 

increase from $42.0 million at TSL 2 to 

$528.0 million at TSL 3. Capital 

conversion costs are driven by 

investments in production equipment to 

accommodate for forced convection and 

reduced conduction losses in the 

electric and gas oven product classes. 

At TSL 3, under the preservation of 

gross margin markup scenario, the 

shipment weighted-average MPC 

increases by 12.7 percent relative to the 

base-case MPC. In this scenario, INPV 

impacts are significantly negative 

because the $929.5 million in 

conversion costs significantly outweighs 

the modest increase in shipment 

weighted-average MPC. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 12.7 percent 

MPC increase is again significantly 

outweighed by a lower average 

manufacturer markup of 1.19 (compared 

to 1.20 used in the base case) and $929.5 

million in conversion costs, resulting in 

significantly negative impacts at TSL 3. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE quantitatively assessed the 

impacts of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment. DOE used the GRIM to 

estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of domestic 

production workers in the base case and 

at each TSL from 2019 to 2048. DOE 

used statistical data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey of 

Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the 

engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

involved with the manufacturing of the 

products are a function of the labor 

intensity of the products, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of the MPCs to estimate the 

annual labor expenditures in the 

industry. DOE used census data and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that is attributable to 

domestic labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section cover only workers up to 

the line-supervisor level directly 

involved in fabricating and assembling 

a product within a manufacturing 

facility. Workers performing services 

that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as material 

handing with a forklift, are also 

included as production labor. DOE’s 

estimates account for production 

workers who manufacture only the 

specific products covered in this 

rulemaking. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V–34 represent the potential 

production employment that could 

result following 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 real risk of manufacturers 

evaluating sourcing decisions in 

response to new and amended energy 

conservation standards, the lower 

bound of the employment results 

includes the estimated total number of 

U.S. production workers in the industry 

who could lose their jobs if some or all 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33080 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

existing production were moved outside 

of the United States. While the results 

present a range of employment impacts 

following 2019, the following sections 

also include qualitative discussions of 

the likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, 

documented in chapter 17 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

Using 2011 ASM data and interviews 

with manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 60 percent of the 

residential conventional ovens 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 6,564 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing residential conventional 

ovens in 2019. Table V–34 shows the 

range of the impacts of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on U.S. production workers in the 

residential conventional oven industry. 

TABLE V–34—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVENS

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2019 

Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2019 (without changes in 

production locations) .................................................................................... 6,564 6,571 6,622 7,397 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2019 * ....................... ........................ 0–7 (1,641)–58 (3,282)–833 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

At the upper end of the range, all 

examined TSLs show a slight increase 

in the number of domestic employment 

for residential conventional ovens. DOE 

believes that manufacturers would 

increase production hiring due to the 

increase in the labor associated with 

adding the required components to 

make residential conventional ovens 

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. 

DOE does not expect any significant 

changes in domestic employment at TSL 

1 because standards would only affect 

standby mode power consumption at 

this TSL. Most manufacturers stated that 

this TSL would not require significant 

design changes and therefore would not 

have a significant impact on domestic 

employment decisions. 

At TSLs 2 and 3, all product classes 

would require higher efficiency 

standards and therefore most 

manufacturers would be required to 

make modifications to their existing 

production lines. However, 

manufacturers stated that due to the 

larger size of most residential 

conventional ovens very few units are 

shipped from far distances such as Asia 

or Europe. The vast majority of 

residential conventional ovens are 

currently made in North America. Some 

manufacturers stated that even 

significant changes to production line 

would not cause them to shift their 

production to lower labor-cost 

countries, as several manufacturers 

either only produce residential 

conventional ovens domestically or 

have recently made significant 

investments to continue to produce a 

portion of their residential conventional 

ovens domestically. DOE estimates that 

at most 25 percent of the domestic labor 

for residential conventional ovens could 

move to other countries in response to 

the standards proposed at TSL 2. 

However, DOE believes this to be a high 

upper bound estimate as most 

manufacturers would not significantly 

alter their production locations at the 

efficiency levels prescribed at TSL 2. 

At TSL 3, manufacturers could alter 

production locations in response to 

standards since all product classes 

would be required to meet max tech. 

DOE estimated that at most 50 percent 

of the domestic labor for residential 

conventional ovens could move to other 

countries in response to the standards 

prescribed at TSL 3. 

DOE seeks comment on the potential 

domestic employment impacts to 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers at the proposed 

efficiency levels. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturer Capacity 

Residential conventional oven 

manufacturers stated that they did not 

anticipate any capacity constraints for 

the efficiency levels analyzed for either 

electric or gas residential conventional 

ovens. 

DOE requests comment on any 

potential manufacturer capacity 

constraints caused by the proposed 

standards in this NOPR, TSL 2. 

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups 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 to small 

businesses in section VI.B and did not 

identify any other adversely impacted 

subgroups for residential conventional 

ovens for this rulemaking based on the 

results of the industry characterization. 

DOE requests comment on 

manufacturer subgroups that DOE 

should analyze and/or types of 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers for the subgroup 

analysis. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts a 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis 

as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

DOE acknowledges that most 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers also make appliances 

that are or could be subject to future 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33081 

67Energy conservation standards for residential 

refrigerators, refrigerators-freezers, and freezers 

became effective on September 14, 2014. 76 FR 

57516 [Docket Number EE–2008–BT–STD–0012] 

68Energy conservation standards for residential 

clothes dryers became effective on January 1, 2015. 

76 FR 52854 [Docket Number EERE–2007–BT– 

STD–0010] 

69The first round of prescribed energy 

conservation standards for residential clothes 

washers became effective on March 7, 2015. The 

second round of standards will go into effect on 

January 1, 2018. 77 FR 59719 [Docket Number 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019] 

70Energy conservation standards for microwave 

oven operating in standby mode and off mode will 

go into effect on June 17, 2016. 78 FR 36316 [Docket 

Number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0048] 

energy conservation standards 

implemented by DOE. DOE is aware of 

several other energy conservations that 

could also affect residential 

conventional oven manufacturers. These 

energy conservation standards include 

residential refrigerators and freezers that 

have a compliance date in 2014,67

residential clothes dryers that have a 

compliance date in 2015,68 residential 

clothes washers that have a compliance 

date in 2015 and in 2018,69 and 

microwave ovens that have a 

compliance date in 2016.70

The compliance years and expected 

industry conversion costs of relevant 

amended energy conservation standards 

are indicated in Table V–35. 

TABLE V–35—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVEN MANUFACTURERS

Federal energy conservation standards Compliance date 

Estimated total industry conversion 

expense 

Residential Refrigerators and Freezers—76 FR 57516 (September 15, 2011) ...... 2014 ........................................................ $1,243M (2009$) 

Residential Clothes Dryers—76 FR 52854 (April 21, 2011) .................................... 2015 ........................................................ 95M (2009$) 

Residential Clothes Washers—77 FR 59719 (May 31, 2012) ................................. 2015—First Round .................................

2018—Second Round ............................

418.5M (2010$) 

Microwave Ovens—78 FR 36316 (June 17, 2013) ................................................. 2016 ........................................................ 43.1M (2011$) 

Residential Cooking Tops ........................................................................................ 2020 * ...................................................... N/A ** 

* The date listed is an approximation. The exact date is pending final DOE action. 

** For energy conservation standards awaiting DOE final action. DOE does not have finalized estimated total industry conversion expenses. 

DOE discusses these and other 

requirements and includes the full 

details of the cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. DOE seeks comment on the 

compliance costs of any other 

regulations residential conventional 

oven manufacturers must make, 

especially if compliance with those 

regulations is required three years 

before or after the estimated compliance 

date of this proposed standard (2019). 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential standards for 

conventional ovens, DOE compared the 

energy consumption of those products 

under the base case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each TSL. 

Table V–36 and Table V–37 present 

DOE’s projections of the national energy 

savings for each TSL considered for 

conventional ovens. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H.1 of this notice. 

TABLE V–36—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE PRIMARY NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN

2019–2048 (QUADS) 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................................ 0.023 0.057 0.161 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .......................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.003 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ......................................................................... 0.071 0.071 0.372 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................................ 0.021 0.021 0.108 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ................................................................................. 0.000 0.204 0.209 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................... 0.000 0.038 0.039 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................................... 0.038 0.268 0.282 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................. 0.002 0.014 0.014 

Total (All Products) ............................................................................................................... 0.156 0.673 1.188 

TABLE V–37—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE FFC NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019– 

2048 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................................ 0.024 0.060 0.168 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .......................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.003 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ......................................................................... 0.074 0.074 0.389 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................................ 0.022 0.022 0.113 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ................................................................................. 0.000 0.216 0.223 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................... 0.000 0.041 0.042 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................................... 0.040 0.281 0.297 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33082 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

71U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis’’ (Sept. 17, 

2003) (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/). 

72Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. While 

adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 

period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 

undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year 

period and that the 3-year compliance date may 

yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis 

period may not be appropriate given the variability 

that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 

the fact that for some consumer products, the 

compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 

73Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

circulars_a004_a-4. Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4. 

TABLE V–37—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE FFC NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019– 

2048—Continued 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................. 0.002 0.014 0.015 

Total (All Products) ............................................................................................................... 0.163 0.709 1.251 

OMB Circular A–4 71 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 nine, rather than 30, years of 

product shipments. The choice of a 

nine-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.72 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to conventional ovens. 

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 

nine-year analytical period are 

presented in Table V–38. The impacts 

are counted over the lifetime of 

conventional ovens purchased in 2019– 

2027. 

TABLE V–38—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE FFC NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019– 

2027 

Product class 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................................ 0.007 0.016 0.046 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .......................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.002 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ......................................................................... 0.018 0.018 0.102 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................................ 0.006 0.006 0.033 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ................................................................................. 0.000 0.070 0.072 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................... 0.000 0.013 0.013 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................................... 0.012 0.081 0.085 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................................. 0.001 0.004 0.004 

Total (All Products) ............................................................................................................... 0.044 0.210 0.358 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from 

particular standard levels for 

conventional ovens. In accordance with 

the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 

analysis (OMB Circular A–4, section E, 

September 17, 2003),73 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. 

Table V–39. shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL DOE considered for 

conventional ovens. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of products 

purchased in 2019–2048. 

TABLE V–39—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTS

SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

Equipment type Discount rate 

% 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 * 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing .............................................. 3% 

7% 

0.17 

0.07 

0.31 

0.11 

(0.57) 

(0.49) 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................ 3% 

7% 

0.00 

0.00 

0.01 

0.00 

(0.02) 

(0.01) 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................ 3% 

7% 

0.52 

0.21 

0.52 

0.21 

(1.02) 

(0.96) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33083 

TABLE V–39—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTS

SHIPPED IN 2019–2048—Continued 

Equipment type Discount rate 

% 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 * 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .......................................... 3% 

7% 

0.16 

0.07 

0.16 

0.07 

(0.32) 

(0.30) 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ................................................... 3% 

7% 

0.00 

0.00 

3.59 

1.55 

3.06 

1.24 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ................................................. 3% 

7% 

0.00 

0.00 

0.67 

0.29 

0.57 

0.23 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ................................................. 3% 

7% 

0.28 

0.12 

5.48 

2.31 

4.72 

1.87 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................... 3% 

7% 

0.01 

0.01 

0.28 

0.12 

0.24 

0.10 

Total (All Products) ................................................................................. 3% 

7% 

1.15 

0.48 

11.02 

4.66 

6.67 

1.67 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V–40. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

products purchased in 2019–2027. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria. 

TABLE V–40—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTS

SHIPPED IN 2019–2027 

Equipment type Discount rate 

(Billion 2014$) 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 * 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing .............................................. 3% 

7% 

0.06 

0.03 

0.10 

0.05 

(0.28) 

(0.28) 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................ 3% 

7% 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

(0.01) 

(0.01) 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................ 3% 

7% 

0.16 

0.09 

0.16 

0.09 

(0.53) 

(0.55) 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In .......................................... 3% 

7% 

0.05 

0.03 

0.05 

0.03 

(0.17) 

(0.18) 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ................................................... 3% 

7% 

0.00 

0.00 

1.47 

0.83 

1.22 

0.65 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ................................................. 3% 

7% 

0.00 

0.00 

0.27 

0.15 

0.22 

0.12 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ................................................. 3% 

7% 

0.10 

0.06 

2.02 

1.16 

1.71 

0.92 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................... 3% 

7% 

0.01 

0.00 

0.11 

0.06 

0.09 

0.05 

Total (All Products) ................................................................................. 3% 

7% 

0.38 

0.22 

4.18 

2.38 

2.26 

0.72 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

The above results reflect the use of a 

default trend to estimate the change in 

price for conventional ovens over the 

analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of 

this notice). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR 

TSD. In the high price decline case, the 

NPV is higher than in the default case. 

In the low price decline case, the NPV 

is lower than in the default case. 

c. Impacts on Employment 

DOE expects energy conservation 

standards for conventional ovens to 

reduce energy bills for consumers of 

those products, and the resulting net 

savings to be 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 notice, 

DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy to estimate indirect 

employment impacts of the TSLs that 

DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE understands that 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, where 

these uncertainties are reduced. 

The results suggest that the proposed 

standards are likely to have negligible 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33084 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 NOPR 

TSD presents detailed results. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

Based on testing conducted in support 

of this proposed rule, discussed in 

section IV.C.2 of this notice, DOE 

concluded that the standards proposed 

in this NOPR would not reduce the 

utility or performance of the 

conventional ovens under consideration 

in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of 

these products currently offer units that 

meet or exceed the proposed standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE has also considered any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from the proposed standards. The 

Attorney General determines the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard, and transmits such 

determination to DOE, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of such 

impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) 

and (B)(ii)) 

DOE will transmit a copy of this 

NOPR and the accompanying TSD to the 

Attorney General, requesting that the 

DOJ provide its determination on this 

issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s 

comments on the proposed rule in 

determining whether to proceed with 

the proposed energy conservation 

standards. DOE will also publish and 

respond to DOJ’s comments in the 

Federal Register. 

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 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. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, chapter 15 in the 

NOPR TSD presents the estimated 

reduction in generating capacity for the 

TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Energy savings from proposed 

standards for conventional ovens are 

expected to yield environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases. Table V–41. provides 

DOE’s estimate of cumulative emissions 

reductions to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. DOE 

reports annual emissions reductions for 

each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE V–41—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ....................................................................................................... 9 .0 38 .6 68 .2 

SO2 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 7 .4 29 .1 51 .8 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................. 6 .9 32 .2 56 .7 

Hg (tons) ................................................................................................................................ 0 .02 0 .09 0 .16 

CH4 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 0 .88 3 .51 6 .22 

N2O (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 0 .13 0 .50 0 .89 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ....................................................................................................... 0 .52 2 .52 4 .42 

SO2 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 0 .09 0 .36 0 .63 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................. 7 .5 36 .6 64 .2 

Hg (tons) ................................................................................................................................ 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 

CH4 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 43 .6 218 381 

N2O (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 0 .00 0 .02 0 .03 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ....................................................................................................... 9 .5 41 .1 72 .6 

SO2 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 7 .5 29 .5 52 .4 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................................................. 14 .4 68 .8 120 .9 

Hg (tons) ................................................................................................................................ 0 .02 0 .09 0 .16 

CH4 (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 44 .4 221 .2 387 .5 

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) * ................................................................................................ 1,244 6,195 10,849 

N2O (thousand tons) .............................................................................................................. 0 .13 0 .52 0 .92 

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * ................................................................................................ 34 .6 137 .0 243 .2 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

As part of the analysis for this 

proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs. As discussed in 

section IV.L of this notice, for CO2, DOE 

used the most recent values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. 

The four sets of SCC values for CO2

emissions reductions in 2015 resulting 

from that process (expressed in 2014$) 

are represented by $12.2/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 5-percent discount rate), $41.2/

metric ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate), $63.4/metric ton (the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33085 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$121/metric ton (the 95th-percentile 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate). The values for 

later years are higher due to increasing 

damages (emissions-related costs) as the 

projected magnitude of climate change 

increases. 

Table V–42. presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE 

calculated a present value of the stream 

of annual values using the same 

discount rate as was used in the studies 

upon which the dollar-per-ton values 

are based. DOE calculated domestic 

values as a range from 7 percent to 23 

percent of the global values; these 

results are presented in chapter 14 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V–42—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

TSL 

(Million 2014$) 

SCC case * 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................................... 62.0 288.2 458.0 892.8 

2 ............................................................................................................... 266.7 1,238.9 1,968.8 3,836.7 

3 ............................................................................................................... 473.1 2,194.1 3,485.5 6,794.3 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................................... 3.5 16.6 26.5 51.5 

2 ............................................................................................................... 17.1 80.0 127.4 248.0 

3 ............................................................................................................... 30.0 140.6 223.8 435.8 

Total FFC Emissions 

1 ............................................................................................................... 65.5 304.8 484.5 944.3 

2 ............................................................................................................... 283.8 1,319.0 2,096.1 4,084.7 

3 ............................................................................................................... 503.1 2,334.7 3,709.3 7,230.1 

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 world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed on reducing CO2 emissions 

in this rulemaking is subject to change. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

various 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. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, 

and taking into account the uncertainty 

involved with this particular issue, DOE 

has included in this proposed rule the 

most recent values and analyses 

resulting from the interagency process. 

DOE also estimated the cumulative 

monetary value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for conventional 

ovens. The dollar-per-ton value that 

DOE used is discussed in section IV.L 

of this notice. Table V–43. presents the 

cumulative present values for each TSL 

calculated using 7-percent and 3- 

percent discount rates. 

TABLE V–43—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: 

ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF

NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 

TSL 

(Million 2014$) 

3% 

discount 

rate 

7% 

discount 

rate 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ................................ 24.6 9.7 

2 ................................ 113.8 45.2 

3 ................................ 200.9 80.1 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................................ 25.9 9.7 

2 ................................ 127.1 48.4 

3 ................................ 223.2 85.1 

Total FFC Emissions 

1 ................................ 50.4 19.4 

2 ................................ 240.9 93.5 

3 ................................ 424.1 165.2 

7. Summary of National Economic 

Impacts 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Table V–44. presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the potential economic benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 and NOX

emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of consumer 

savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking, at both a 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rate. 

The CO2 values used in the columns of 

each table correspond to the four sets of 

SCC values discussed above. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33086 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

74The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of 

the order of 30–95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). 

‘‘Correction to ‘‘Control of fossil-fuel particulate 

black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most 

effective method of slowing global warming.’’ ’’ J. 

Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105. 

TABLE V–44—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE

OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

(Billion 2014$) 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC case $12.2/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

SCC case $41.2/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

SCC case $63.4/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

SCC case $121/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

1 ....................................................... 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.1 

2 ....................................................... 11.5 12.6 13.4 15.3 

3 ....................................................... 7.6 9.4 10.8 14.3 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC case $12.2/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

SCC case $41.2/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

SCC case $63.4/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

SCC case $121/t 

and medium 

NOX value 

1 ....................................................... 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4 

2 ....................................................... 5.0 6.1 6.9 8.8 

3 ....................................................... 2.3 4.2 5.5 9.1 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. monetary 

savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions, while the value of CO2

reductions is based on a global value. 

Second, the assessments of operating 

cost savings and the SCC are performed 

with different methods that use different 

time frames for analysis. The national 

operating cost savings is measured for 

the lifetime of equipment shipped in 

2019 to 2048. Because CO2 emissions 

have a very long residence time in the 

atmosphere,74 the SCC values in future 

years reflect future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of 

CO2 that continue well beyond 2100. 

8. 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)) DOE did not 

consider any other factors for this 

NOPR. 

C. Conclusion 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard 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, considering to the greatest 

extent practicable the seven statutory 

factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended 

standard must also result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The Department considered the 

impacts of standards at each TSL, 

beginning with a 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 trial 

standard level, tables 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. Those 

include the impacts on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard. Section V.B.1 of this notice 

presents the estimated impacts of each 

TSL for these subgroups. 

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. This undervaluation 

suggests that regulation that promotes 

energy efficiency can produce 

significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, 

reducing pollution). 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 (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 forego a purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33087 

75P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies (2005) 72, 853–883. 

76Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

2010. Available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf. 

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 

regulatory option decreases the number 

of products used 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 NOPR 

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.75

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 efficiency 

standards, and potential enhancements 

to the methodology by which these 

impacts are defined and estimated in 

the regulatory process.76 DOE welcomes 

comments on how to 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 Conventional Ovens 

Table V–45. and Table V–46. 

summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for conventional 

ovens. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

V.A of this notice. 

TABLE V–45—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Cumulative FFC Energy Savings (quads) 

0.163 ................ 0.709 ................ 1.251. 

NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits 2014$ billion 

3% discount rate ................................................................................................................. 1.2 .................... 11.0 .................. 6.7. 

7% discount rate ................................................................................................................. 0.5 .................... 4.7 .................... 1.7. 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 million metric tons ....................................................................................................... 9.5 .................... 41.1 .................. 72.6. 

SO2 thousand tons ............................................................................................................. 7.5 .................... 29.5 .................. 52.4. 

NOX thousand tons ............................................................................................................. 14.4 .................. 68.8 .................. 120.9. 

Hg tons ............................................................................................................................... 0.02 .................. 0.09 .................. 0.16. 

CH4 thousand tons ............................................................................................................. 44.4 .................. 221.2 ................ 387.5. 

CH4 thousand tons CO 2 eq * .............................................................................................. 1,244 ................ 6,195 ................ 10,849. 

N2O thousand tons ............................................................................................................. 0.13 .................. 0.52 .................. 0.92. 

N2O thousand tons CO 2 eq * .............................................................................................. 34.6 .................. 137.0 ................ 243.2. 

Value of Emissions Reduction 

CO2 2014$ million ** ........................................................................................................... 66 to 944 .......... 284 to 4,085 ..... 503 to 7,230. 

NOX—3% discount rate 2014$ million ............................................................................... 50.4 .................. 240.9 ................ 424.1. 

NOX—7% discount rate 2014$ million ............................................................................... 19.4 .................. 93.5 .................. 165.2. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. 

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

TABLE V–46—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3* 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Industry NPV (2014$ million) (Base Case INPV = $783.5) ...................................... 762.1–762.8 697.1–702.6 56.0–140.6 

Industry NPV (% change) .......................................................................................... (2.7)–(2.6) (11.0)–(10.3) (92.9)–(82.0) 

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2014$) 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing .......................................................... $13.96 $15.18 ($37.60) 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ........................................................ 14.11 15.25 (37.64) 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ....................................................... 14.10 14.10 (27.79) 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ...................................................... 14.20 14.20 (27.80) 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................... 0.00 289.73 178.91 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................. 0.00 289.77 178.92 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................. 18.02 282.80 165.73 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–46—CONVENTIONAL OVENS: SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3* 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................... 18.03 282.85 165.75 

Consumer Simple PBP (years) 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing .......................................................... 0.9 4.0 17.5 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ........................................................ 0.9 4.0 17.5 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ....................................................... 0.9 0.9 18.1 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ...................................................... 0.9 0.9 18.1 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................... .............................. 1.7 5.3 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................. .............................. 1.7 5.3 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................. 0.8 1.2 5.4 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................... 0.8 1.2 5.4 

% of Consumers That Experience Net Cost 

PC1: Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing .......................................................... 0 12 82 

PC2: Electric Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ........................................................ 0 12 82 

PC3: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ....................................................... 0 0 76 

PC4: Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ...................................................... 0 0 76 

PC5: Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................... 0 0 24 

PC6: Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ............................................................. 0 0 24 

PC7: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ............................................................. 0 0 27 

PC8: Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In ........................................................... 0 0 27 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 3 would save 1.25 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. TSL 3 has an estimated NPV 

of consumer benefit of 1.7 billion using 

a discount rate of 7 percent, and 6.7 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 72.6 Mt of CO2, 120.9 

thousand tons of NOX, 52.4 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.2 ton of Hg, 387.5 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.92 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reduction at TSL 3 ranges from $503 

million to $7,230 million. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a savings ranging from ¥$37.64 for PC2 

(Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/SlideIn) to $178.92 for product class 6 (Gas 

Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in). The 

simple payback period ranges from 5 

years for PC5, PC6, PC7, and PC8 (Gas 

Standard Ovens, Free-Standing and 

Built-In/Slide-In, and Gas Self-Clean 

Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/

Slide-In) to 18 years for PC1, PC2, PC3, 

and PC4 (Electric Standard Ovens, 

Built-In/Slide-In and Free-Standing and 

Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/

Slide-In and Free-Standing). The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC net cost ranges from 24 percent for 

PC5 and PC6 (Gas Standard Ovens, 

Free-Standing and Built-In/Slide-In) to 

82 percent for PC1 and PC2 (Electric 

Standard Oven, Free-Standing and 

Built-In/Slide-In). 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $727.5 

million to a decrease of $642.9 million, 

equivalent to a loss of 92.9 percent and 

a loss of 82.0 percent, respectively. 

Products that meet the efficiency 

standards specified by this TSL are 

forecast to represent 11 percent of 

shipments in the year leading up to new 

and amended standards. As such, 

manufacturers would have to redesign 

the vast majority of their products by 

the 2019 compliance date to meet 

demand. Redesigning all these units to 

meet the current max-tech efficiency 

levels would require considerable 

capital and equipment conversion 

expenditures. At TSL 3, the capital 

conversion costs total $528.0 million, 

4.3 times the industry annual capital 

expenditure in the year leading up to 

new and amended standards. DOE 

estimates that complete platform 

redesigns would cost the industry 

$401.5 million in product conversion 

costs. These conversion costs largely 

relate to the research programs required 

to develop new products that meet the 

efficiency standards set forth by TSL 3. 

These costs are equivalent to 4.5 times 

the industry annual budget for research 

and development. Total capital and 

product conversion costs associated 

with the changes in products and 

manufacturing facilities required at TSL 

3 would require significant use of 

manufacturers’ financial reserves, 

impacting other areas of business that 

compete for these resources, and 

significantly reducing INPV. In 

addition, manufacturers could face a 

substantial impact on profitability at 

TSL 3. Because manufacturers are more 

likely to reduce their margins to 

maintain a price-competitive product at 

higher TSLs, DOE expects that TSL 3 

would yield impacts closer to the high 

end of the range of INPV impacts. If the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could 

result in a net loss of 92.9 percent in 

INPV to residential conventional oven 

manufacturers. As a result, at TSL 3, 

DOE expects that some companies could 

be forced to exit the residential 

conventional oven market or shift 

production abroad, both of which would 

negatively impact domestic 

manufacturing capacity and 

employment. 

In view of the foregoing, DOE 

concludes that, at TSL 3 for 

conventional ovens, the benefits of 

energy savings, positive NPV of total 

customer benefits, customer LCC 

savings for four of the eight product 

classes, emission reductions and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the negative customer 

impacts for product classes 1, 2, 3, and 

4 (Electric Standard Ovens, FreeStanding and Built-In/Slide-In and 

Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing 

and Built-In/Slide-In), the significant 

reduction in industry value at TSL 3, as 

well as the potential for loss of domestic 

manufacturing. Consequently, DOE has 

concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.71 quads of energy, an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33089 

77To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, 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 (2020, 2030, etc.), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2014. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 

7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 

value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used casespecific discount rates. 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. 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit is $4.7 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $11.0 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 41.1 Mt of CO2, 68.8 

thousand tons of NOX, 29.5 thousand 

tons of SO2, 0.09 tons of Hg, 221.2 

thousand tons of CH4, and 0.52 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reduction at TSL 2 ranges from $284 

million to $4,085 million. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a savings ranging from $14.10 for PC3 

(Electric Self-Clean Ovens, FreeStanding) to $289.77 for PC6 (Gas 

Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-in). The 

simple payback period ranges from 1 

year for PC3, PC4, PC7, and PC8 

(Electric Self-Clean Ovens, FreeStanding and Built-In/Slide-In and Gas 

Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and 

Built-In/Slide-In) to 4 years for PC1 and 

PC2 (Electric Standard Ovens FreeStanding and Built-In/Slide-In). The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC net cost ranges from zero percent 

for PC3 through PC8 (Electric Self-Clean 

Ovens, Free-Standing and Built-In/

Slide-In, Gas Standard Ovens, FreeStanding and Built-In/Slide-In, and Gas 

Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing and 

Built-In/Slide-In) to 12 percent for PC1 

and PC2 (Electric Standard Ovens, FreeStanding and Built-In/Slide-In). 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $86.4 

million to a decrease of $80.9 million, 

equivalent to a loss of 11.0 percent and 

a loss of 10.3 percent, respectively. 

Products that meet the efficiency 

standards specified by this TSL are 

forecast to represent 46 percent of 

shipments in the year leading up to new 

and amended standards. DOE estimates 

that compliance with TSL 2 would 

require manufacturers to make an 

estimated $42.0 million in capital 

conversion costs. This represents a 0.3 

times increase in the annual capital 

expenditure budget in the year leading 

up to new and amended standards. TSL 

2 will also require manufacturers to 

make an estimated $67.9 million in 

product conversion costs primarily 

relating to the research and 

development programs needed to 

improve upon existing platforms to 

meet the specified efficiency levels. 

This represents 0.8 times the industry 

budget for research and development in 

the year leading up to new and 

amended standards. The substantial 

reduction in conversion costs 

corresponding to compliance with TSL 

2 greatly mitigates the operational risk 

and impact on INPV. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes 

that at TSL 2 for residential 

conventional ovens, the benefits of 

energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, emission reductions, 

and the estimated monetary value of the 

CO2 emissions reductions, and positive 

average LCC savings would outweigh 

the negative impacts on some 

consumers and on manufacturers, 

including the conversion costs that 

would result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 2, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that this TSL will 

offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in significant conservation of 

energy. Therefore, DOE proposes TSL 2 

for conventional ovens. The proposed 

energy conservation standards for 

conventional ovens are shown in Table 

V–47. 

TABLE V–47—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL OVENS

Compliance Date: January 1, 2019 

Product class 

Integrated annual energy consumption 

(IAEC) 

Electricity consumption 

(kWh/year) 

Gas consumption 

(kBtu/year) 

Electric Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ........... 122.5 + (31.8 × Rated Cavity Volume) ............

Electric Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in .......... 128.6 + (31.8 × Rated Cavity Volume) ............

Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing ......... 163.2 + (42.3 × Rated Cavity Volume) ............

Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ........ 169.1 + (42.3 × Rated Cavity Volume) ............

Gas Standard Ovens, Free-Standing ................ ........................................................................... 492.9 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume). 

Gas Standard Ovens, Built-in/Slide-in ............... ........................................................................... 499.5 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume). 

Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Free-Standing .............. ........................................................................... 746.7 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume). 

Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-in ............. ........................................................................... 755.5 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume). 

Note: The Rated Cavity Volume is the volume of the oven cavity in cubic feet as measured using the final DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix I. 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Proposed Standards 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the proposed standards 

(consisting of operating cost savings 

from using less energy, minus increases 

in product purchase costs, which is 

another way of representing consumer 

NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the 

benefits of CO2 and NOX emission 

reductions.77

Table V–48 shows the annualized 

values for conventional ovens under 

TSL 2, expressed in 2014$. The results 

under the primary estimate are as 

follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate 

for benefits and costs other than CO2

reductions, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

SCC series corresponding to a value of 

$41.2/ton in 2015 (in 2014$), the cost of 

the standards for conventional ovens in 

today’s rule is $33.5 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

annualized benefits are $494 million per 

year in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $74 million in CO2 reductions, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and $9 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $543 million per year. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs and the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $41.2/ton in 

2015 (in 2014$), the cost of the 

standards for conventional ovens in 

today’s rule is $33.1 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $648 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $74 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $13 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $701 million per 

year. 

TABLE V–48—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AMENDED STANDARDS (TSL 2) FOR CONVENTIONAL

OVENS SOLD IN 2019–2048 

(Million 2014$/year) 

Discount rate Primary 

estimate * 

Low net benefits estimate * High net benefits estimate * 

Benefits 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings .................................................. 7% ...............................

3% ...............................

494 .................

648 .................

457 .................

593 .................

542. 

719. 

CO2 Reduction at $12.2/t ** .............................................................. 5% ............................... 21 ................... 20 ................... 24. 

CO2 Reduction at $41.2/t ** .............................................................. 3% ............................... 74 ................... 68 ................... 81. 

CO2 Reduction at $63.4/t ** .............................................................. 2.5% ............................ 108 ................. 100 ................. 119. 

CO2 Reduction at $121/t ** ............................................................... 3% ............................... 228 ................. 211 ................. 252. 

NOX Reduction † ............................................................................... 7% ...............................

3% ...............................

9.24 ................

13.43 ..............

8.66 ................

12.46 ..............

10.11. 

14.80. 

Total †† ....................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ..... 524 to 731 ..... 485 to 677 ..... 576 to 804. 

7% ............................... 577 ................. 534 ................. 634. 

3% plus CO2 range ..... 682 to 889 ..... 625 to 817 ..... 758 to 986. 

3% ............................... 734 ................. 674 ................. 815. 

Costs 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs .............................................. 7% ...............................

3% ...............................

34 ...................

33 ...................

34 ...................

34 ...................

33. 

33. 

Total †† ....................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ..... 491 to 697 ..... 451 to 642 ..... 543 to 771. 

7% ............................... 543 ................. 499 ................. 601. 

3% plus CO2 range ..... 649 to 856 ..... 592 to 783 ..... 725 to 953. 

3% ............................... 701 ................. 640 ................. 783. 

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from products purchased from 2019 through 2048. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2019 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of 

incremental equipment costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from 

the AEO 2015 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline 

rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the 

High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.1 of this notice. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2014$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2015 under several scenarios. The values of 

$12.2, $41.2, and $63.4 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The 

value of $121 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. 

† The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2. 

†† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $41.2/ton in 2015 

(2014$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that the 

proposed standards address are as 

follows: 

(1) Insufficient information and the 

high costs of gathering and analyzing 

relevant information leads some 

consumers to miss opportunities to 

make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency. 

(2) In some cases the benefits of more 

efficient products are not realized due to 

misaligned incentives between 

purchasers and users. An example of 

such a case is when the products 

purchase decision is made by a building 

contractor or building owner who does 

not pay the energy costs. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of appliances that are not 

captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, 

environmental protection, and national 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases that 

impact human health and global 

warming. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

this regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866. 

DOE presented to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the OMB for review the draft 

rule and other documents prepared for 

this rulemaking, including a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA), and has included 

these documents in the rulemaking 

record. The assessments prepared 

pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33091 

be found in the technical support 

document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563. 76 

FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 

13563 is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

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 

Executive Order 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 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, DOE believes 

that the NOPR is consistent with these 

principles, including the requirement 

that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net 

benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 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 Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has 

prepared the following IRFA for the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the 

Number of Small Entities 

For manufacturers of residential 

conventional ovens, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53544 (September 5, 2000) and codified 

at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards 

are listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/

files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Residential conventional oven 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335221, ‘‘Household Cooking 

Appliance Manufacturing.’’ The SBA 

sets a threshold of 750 employees or 

fewer for an entity to be considered a 

small business for this category. 

DOE reviewed the potential standard 

levels considered in this NOPR under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. To better assess the potential 

impacts of this rulemaking on small 

entities, DOE conducted a more focused 

inquiry of the companies that could be 

small business manufacturers of 

products covered by this rulemaking. 

During its market survey, DOE used 

available public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE’s 

research involved industry trade 

association membership directories 

(e.g., AHAM), information from 

previous rulemakings, individual 

company Web sites, and market 

research tools (e.g., Hoover’s reports) to 

create a list of companies that 

manufacture or sell residential 

conventional ovens covered by this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE VI–1—SOURCES USED TO IDENTIFY RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVEN MANUFACTURERS

Source Number of large 

manufacturers identified 

Number of small 

manufacturers identified 

AHAM Trade Association Directory ......................................................................... 10 1 

Previous Rulemaking ............................................................................................... 2 3 

Market Research ..................................................................................................... 0 3 

Total .................................................................................................................. 12 7 

DOE also asked stakeholders and 

industry representatives if they were 

aware of any additional small 

manufacturers during manufacturer 

interviews and at DOE public meetings. 

DOE reviewed publicly available data 

and contacted various companies on its 

complete list of manufacturers, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer. DOE screened 

out companies that do not offer 

products impacted by this rulemaking, 

do not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. 

DOE identified 19 companies that 

either manufacture or sell residential 

conventional ovens that would be 

affected by this proposal. Of these 19 

companies, DOE identified seven that 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business. 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

DOE contacted identified businesses 

to invite them to take part in a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33092 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturer impact analysis interview. 

Of the businesses contacted, DOE was 

able to reach and discuss potential 

standards with one small business. DOE 

also obtained information about small 

businesses and potential impacts on 

small businesses while interviewing 

large manufacturers. 

c. Residential Conventional Oven 

Industry Structure and Nature of 

Competition 

Three major manufacturers supply 

approximately 85 percent of the market 

for residential conventional ovens. DOE 

estimates that the remaining 15 percent 

of the market is served by a combination 

of small businesses and large 

businesses. None of the three major 

manufacturers of residential 

conventional ovens affected by this 

rulemaking is a small business. 

d. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Manufacturers 

In general, small manufacturers differ 

from large manufacturers in several 

ways that affect the extent to which a 

manufacturer may be impacted by 

proposed standards. Characteristics of 

small manufacturers typically include: 

Lower production volumes, fewer 

engineering resources, and less access to 

capital. Lower production volumes in 

particular may place small 

manufacturers at a competitive 

disadvantage relative to large 

manufacturers as they convert products 

and facilities to comply with new and 

amended standards. When producing at 

lower volumes, a small manufacturer’s 

conversion costs must be spread over 

fewer units than a larger competitor’s. 

Therefore, unless a small manufacturer 

can differentiate its products in order to 

earn a price premium, the small 

manufacturer may experience a 

disproportionate cost penalty as it 

spreads one-time conversion costs over 

fewer unit sales. Additionally, when 

producing at lower volumes, small 

manufacturers may lack the purchasing 

power of their larger competitors and 

may therefore face higher costs when 

sourcing components for more efficient 

products. Disadvantages tied to lower 

production volumes may be further 

exacerbated by the fact that small 

manufacturers often have more limited 

engineering resources than their larger 

competitors, thereby complicating the 

redesign effort required to comply with 

new and amended standards. Finally, 

small manufacturers often have less 

access to capital, which may be needed 

to cover the conversion costs associated 

with new and amended standards. 

Combined, these factors may entail a 

disproportionate burden on small 

manufacturers. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

At TSL 1 DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $0.3 million and 

product conversion costs of $0.1 million 

for an average small manufacturer. For 

an average large manufacturer, DOE 

estimates capital conversion costs of 

$0.6 million and product conversion 

costs of $0.3 million. 

At TSL 2, the level proposed here, 

DOE estimates capital conversion costs 

of $1.3 million and product conversion 

costs of $4.1 million for an average 

small manufacturer. For an average large 

manufacturer, DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $2.7 million and 

product conversion costs of $3.3 

million. Table VI–2 presents the 

estimated conversion costs as a 

percentage of annual revenue for an 

average small manufacturer relative to 

an average large manufacturer. 

TABLE VI–2—CONVERSION COSTS FACING AN AVERAGE SMALL MANUFACTURER VERSUS AN AVERAGE LARGE

MANUFACTURER OF RESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONAL OVENS

Capital conversion costs 

as a percentage of 

annual revenue 

Product conversion costs 

as a percentage of 

annual revenue 

Total conversion costs 

as a percentage of 

annual revenue 

Average Small Manufacturer ............................... 2 6 8 

Average Large Manufacturer ............................... 1 1 1 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $16.5 million and 

product conversion costs of $19.2 

million for an average small 

manufacturer. For an average large 

manufacturer, DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $34.4 million and 

product conversion costs of $22.2 

million. 

As the results for TSL 2 indicate, new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards could potentially impact 

small businesses disproportionately. 

Although estimated conversion costs at 

TSL 2 are higher for an average large 

manufacturer than an average small 

manufacturer, the relative impacts of 

conversion costs on large manufacturers 

will likely be offset by higher annual 

revenues. This is consistent with the 

dynamic previously described, whereby 

large manufacturers tend to have larger 

production and sales volumes over 

which to spread costs and may also 

enjoy a competitive advantage due to 

their size and ability to access capital 

that may not be available to small 

manufacturers. Since the proposed 

standards could cause competitive 

concerns for small manufacturers, DOE 

cannot certify that the proposed 

standards would not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

businesses. 

DOE requests comments on the 

number of small businesses identified 

and on the impacts of new and amended 

energy conservation standards on small 

businesses. 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being proposed. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion in the previous 

section analyzes impacts on small 

businesses that would result from DOE’s 

new and amended standards. In 

reviewing alternatives to the proposed 

rule, DOE examined energy 

conservation standards set at higher and 

lower efficiency levels, TSL 3 and TSL1, 

respectively. As discussed in section 

VI.B.2, compared to TSL 3, DOE 

estimates that the capital conversion 

costs and product conversion costs for 

an average small manufacturer at TSL 2 

would be 92 and 79 percent lower, 

respectively. The substantial reduction 

in small manufacturer capital and 

product conversion costs corresponding 

to TSL 2 compared to TSL 3 greatly 

mitigates the operational risk and the 

impact of the standard on INPV. 

While TSL 1 would reduce the 

impacts on small business 

manufacturers, it would come at the 

expense of a significant reduction in 

energy savings and NPV benefits to 

consumers, achieving 75 percent lower 

energy savings and 84 percent less NPV 

benefits to consumers compared to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33093 

energy savings and NPV benefits at TSL 

2. 

DOE believes that establishing 

standards at TSL 2 balances the benefits 

of the energy savings and the NPV 

benefits to consumers created at TSL 2 

with the potential burdens placed on 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers, including small business 

manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE is 

declining to adopt one of the other TSLs 

considered above, or the other policy 

alternatives detailed as part of the 

regulatory impacts analysis included in 

Chapter 17 of this NOPR TSD. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

For example, individual manufacturers 

may petition for a waiver of the 

applicable test procedure. (See 10 CFR 

431.401.) Further, EPCA provides that a 

manufacturer whose annual gross 

revenue from all of its operations does 

not exceed $8,000,000 may apply for an 

exemption from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (t)). DOE 

estimates that two of the seven small 

manufacturers could potentially petition 

for a waiver based on their annual gross 

revenue not exceeding $8 million. 

Additionally, Section 504 of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act, 

42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for 

the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 

under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens’’ that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and part 1003 for additional details. 

DOE continues to seek input from 

businesses that would be affected by 

this rulemaking and will consider 

comments received in the development 

of any final rule (See section VII.E. that 

solicits specific data as well as input on 

the results of the analyses contained in 

this section VI.B.4). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of covered products 

must certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the 

applicable DOE test procedure, 

including any amendments adopted for 

that test procedure. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

conventional cooking products. 76 FR 

12422 (March 7, 2011). The collectionof-information requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 30 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

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 (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the 

proposed rule fits within the category of 

actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise 

meets the requirements for application 

of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 

B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, 

B(1)–(5). The proposed rule fits within 

the category of actions because it is a 

rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, and 

for which none of the exceptions 

identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. 

Therefore, DOE has made a CX 

determination for this rulemaking, and 

DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed rule is 

available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 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. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 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 

Executive Order 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; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33094 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 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 http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

Although the proposed rule does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the proposed rule 

will likely result in a final rule that 

could require expenditures of $100 

million or more. Such expenditures may 

include: (1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by conventional cooking 

product manufacturers in the years 

between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards, 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency conventional cooking 

products, starting at the compliance 

date for the applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the NOPR and the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for this 

proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the proposed rule unless DOE 

publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise, or the selection of such an 

alternative is inconsistent with law. 

This proposed rule would establish 

energy conservation standards for 

conventional cooking products that are 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for the 

proposed rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation 

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 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). DOE has reviewed 

the NOPR 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 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

this regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

conventional cooking products, is not a 

significant energy action because the 

proposed standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

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 2667. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33095 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. 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. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this notice. If you plan to attend the 

public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please 

note that foreign nationals participating 

in the public meeting are subject to 

advance security screening procedures 

which require advance notice prior to 

attendance at the public meeting. If a 

foreign national wishes to participate in 

the public meeting, please inform DOE 

of this fact as soon as possible by 

contacting Ms. Regina Washington at 

(202) 586–1214 or by email: 

Regina.Washington@ee.doe.gov so that 

the necessary procedures can be 

completed. 

Please also note that those wishing to 

bring laptops into the Forrestal Building 

will be required to obtain a property 

pass. Visitors should avoid bringing 

laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), there have been recent 

changes regarding ID requirements for 

individuals wishing to enter Federal 

buildings from specific states and U.S. 

territories. Driver’s licenses from the 

following states or territory will not be 

accepted for building entry and one of 

the alternate forms of ID listed below 

will be required. DHS has determined 

that regular driver’s licenses (and ID 

cards) from the following jurisdictions 

are not acceptable for entry into DOE 

facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, 

Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, 

Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable 

alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. 

Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced 

Driver’s License or Enhanced ID-Card 

issued by the states of Minnesota, New 

York or Washington (Enhanced licenses 

issued by these states are clearly marked 

Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s 

License); a military ID or other Federal 

government issued Photo-ID card. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site at: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=85. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33096 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to 

submit printed copies. No facsimiles 

(faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE seeks comment on its proposal 

to develop two distinct component 

standards under separate timetables, 

and whether issues of product design 

and development, consumer utility and 

more broadly, cumulative regulatory 

burden concerns would arise as a result 

of its proposal (see section III.A of this 

notice). 

2. DOE requests comment on its 

decision to defer the consideration of 

adopting energy conservation standards 

for conventional cooking tops until a 

representative, repeatable and 

reproducible test method for cooking 

tops is finalized. DOE invites data and 

information that will allow it to further 

conduct the analysis of cooking tops, 

particularly when using a water-heating 

method to evaluate energy 

consumption. (see section III.B of this 

notice). 

3. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed product classes for residential 

conventional cooking products. DOE 

requests comment on establishing 

separate product classes for freestanding 

and built-in/slide-in ovens. DOE also 

welcomes comment and data on the 

determination that conventional gas 

cooking products with higher input 

rates do not warrant establishing a 

separate product class. (see section 

IV.A.2 of this notice). 

4. DOE seeks data that characterize 

the energy consumption of residential 

steam ovens currently available on the 

market and requests comment regarding 

whether a test procedure that accurately 

measures the energy of a steam cooking 

mode exists. DOE also seeks comment 

on the use of optimized burner and 

cavity design (and other options listed 

in Table IV–5) to meet the proposed 

efficiency levels discussed in section 

I.A.1.b (see section IV.A.3 of this 

notice). 

5. DOE requests comment and data 

regarding additional design options or 

variants of the considered design 

options that can increase the range of 

considered efficiency improvements for 

conventional cooking products, 

including design options that may not 

yet be found in the market (see section 

IV.B.2 of this notice). 

6. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed baseline and incremental 

efficiency levels. DOE specifically 

requests inputs and test data on the 

efficiency improvements associated 

with the design options identified at 

each incremental efficiency level that 

were determined based on either the 

analysis from the 2009 TSD or updated 

based on testing and reverse engineering 

analyses for this NOPR. DOE also seeks 

comment and data on the proposed 

slopes and intercepts used to 

characterize the relationship between 

IAEC and oven cavity volume for each 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 33097 

conventional oven product class (see 

section IV.C.3 of this notice). 

7. DOE requests input and data on the 

proposed incremental manufacturing 

production costs for each efficiency 

level analyzed that were determined 

based on either the analysis from the 

2009 TSD adjusted to reflect changes in 

the PPI or costs determined based on 

testing and reverse engineering analyses 

conducted for this NOPR (see section 

IV.C.4 of this notice). 

8. DOE seeks comment on the 

tentative determination that the 

proposed efficiency levels and design 

options would not impact the consumer 

utility of conventional ovens (see 

section IV.C.5 of this notice). 

9. DOE requests comments on repair 

costs and frequency of repair incurred 

by gas standard and self-clean ovens 

with Glo-bar ignition and electronic 

spark ignition technologies. In this 

NOPR, DOE used data from 2008 

provided by the industry (see section 

IV.E.5 of this notice for details). 

10. DOE requests data that would 

allow for use of different price trend 

projections for electric and gas cooking 

products. (see section IV.H.3.b of this 

notice) 

11. To estimate the impact on 

shipments of the price increase for the 

considered efficiency levels, DOE 

determined that the overall market will 

be inelastic to price changes and will 

not impact shipments. DOE welcomes 

stakeholder input on the effect of 

amended standards on impacts across 

products within the same fuel class and 

equipment. (see section IV.G of this 

notice). 

12. DOE requests comment on the 

reasonableness of the approach DOE has 

used to consider the rebound effect with 

higher-efficiency cooking products. (see 

section IV.F.3 of this notice) 

13. DOE requests comment on DOE’s 

approach for estimating monetary 

benefits associated with emissions 

reductions. (see section IV.L of this 

notice). 

14. DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed manufacturer markup of 1.20 

for all residential conventional ovens 

(see section IV.J.2). 

15. DOE seeks comment on the 

potential domestic employment impacts 

to residential conventional oven 

manufacturers at the proposed 

efficiency levels (see section V.B.2). 

16. DOE requests comment on any 

potential manufacturer capacity 

constraints caused by the proposed 

standards in the NOPR, TSL 2 (see 

section V.B.2). 

17. DOE requests comment on 

manufacturer subgroups that DOE 

should analyze and/or types of 

residential conventional oven 

manufacturers for the subgroup analysis 

(see section V.B.2). 

18. DOE seeks comment on the 

compliance costs of any other 

regulations residential conventional 

oven manufacturers must make, 

especially if compliance with those 

regulations is required three years 

before or after the estimated compliance 

date of this proposed standard (2019) 

(see section V.B.2). 

19. DOE requests comments on the 

number of small businesses identified 

and on the impacts of new and amended 

energy conservation standards on small 

businesses (see section VI.B). 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 

2015. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

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. In § 430.2 revise the definitions of 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ and 

‘‘conventional oven’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Conventional cooking top means a 

class of kitchen ranges and ovens which 

is a household cooking appliance 

consisting of a horizontal surface 

containing one or more surface units 

which include either a gas flame or 

electric resistance heating. This 

includes the conventional cooking top 

portion of a conventional range. 

Conventional oven means a class of 

kitchen ranges and ovens which is a 

household cooking appliance consisting 

of one or more compartments intended 

for the cooking or heating of food by 

means of either a gas flame or electric 

resistance heating. It does not include 

portable or countertop ovens which use 

electric resistance heating for the 

cooking or heating of food and are 

designed for an electrical supply of 

approximately 120 volts. This includes 

the conventional oven(s) portion of a 

conventional range. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 430.32 revise paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(j) Cooking Products. 

(1) Gas cooking products with an 

electrical supply cord manufactured on 

or after January 1, 1990, shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. 

(2) Gas cooking products without an 

electrical supply cord manufactured on 

or after April 9, 2012, shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. 

(3) Conventional ovens manufactured 

on or after [INSERT DATE 3 YEARS 

AFTER FINAL RULE Federal Register 

PUBLICATION] shall have an integrated 

annual energy consumption no greater 

than: 

Product class Integrated annual energy consumption 

Electric Standard Oven, Free-standing .................................................... 122.5 + (31.8 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Electric Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-In .................................................. 128.6 + (31.8 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Electric Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing ................................................. 163.2 + (42.3 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Electric Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-In ................................................ 169.1 + (42.3 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Gas Standard Oven, Free-Standing ......................................................... 492.9 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Gas Standard Oven, Built-In/Slide-In ....................................................... 499.5 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Gas Self-Clean Oven, Free-Standing ...................................................... 746.7 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33098 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Product class Integrated annual energy consumption 

Gas Self-Clean Oven, Built-In/Slide-In ..................................................... 755.5 + (214.4 × Rated Cavity Volume in cubic feet) kWh/yr. 

Note: The Rated Cavity Volume is the volume of the oven cavity in cubic feet as measured using the final DOE test procedure at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix I. 

(4) Microwave-only ovens and 

countertop convection microwave ovens 

manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 

shall have an average standby power not 

more than 1.0 watt. Built-in and overthe-range convection microwave ovens 

manufactured on or after June 17, 2016 

shall have an average standby power not 

more than 2.2 watts. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–13764 Filed 6–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS