2-3 

### Analysis Of New DOE Design Options

1. Remove Oven Door Window
Design Option. The removal of the oven door window will eliminate heat loss through the window glass. However, the window serves a useful function by allowing the cook to monitor cooldng progress without opening the door. Some of the energy saved by the removal of the window would be offset by door openings to check on the cooking progress. This option was assumed by DOE to have no added cost for the purposes of analysis; however, in most cases this option would represent a savings in manufacturer's cost over a non-windowed door.
Experimental Tests. The DOE test procedure3 for oven efficiency was performed using two typical, current production (1992-1993), gas ranges. One range was equipped with a standard oven, and the other was equipped with a self-cleaning oven. The first test, repeated four times for statistical validity, was without a door window. For the second test, the door was replaced with a windowed door and the measurements repeated four times. For the particular models chosen, each is manufactured both with and without an oven doorwindow. This assures that the oven characteristics are identical for each efficiency measurement test; the only variable is the presence or absence of the window. The results of the four tests for each range were averaged and are shown in Table 2-2. For this set of experiments, the oven door was not opened during the test. For perspective, the annual energy savings expressed as cost is 42 cents for a standard oven and 20 cents for a self-cleaning oven. This assumes a gas cost of $6.00/mmBtu, which is typical for the first year that any standard would be in effect, based on DOE projections.10" DOE, in its Technical Support Document (TSD),12 assumes that opening the door during the course of a cooking cycle does not have a significant effect on the energy savings. 2-3 Analysis OfNew DOE Design Options

1. Remove Oven Door Window
Design Option. The removal ofthe oven door window will eliminate heat loss through the window glass. However, the window serves a useful function by allowing the cook to monitor cooking progress without opening the door. Some of the energy saved by the removal ofthe window would be offset by door openings to check on the cooking progress. This option was assumed by DOE to have no added cost for the purposes of analysis; however, in most cases this option would represent a savings in manufacturer's cost over a non-windowed door.
Experimental Tests. The DOE test procedure(3) for oven efficiency was performed using two typical, current production (1992-1993), gas ranges. One range was equipped with a standard oven, and the other was equipped with a self-cleaning oven. The first test, repeated four times for statistical validity, was without a door window. For the second test, the door was replaced with a windowed door and the measurements repeated four times. For the particular models chosen, each is manufactured both with and without an oven door window. This assures that the oven characteristics are identical for each efficiency measurement test; the only variable is the presence or absence ofthe window. The results ofthe four tests for each range were averaged and are shown in Table 2-2. For this set of experiments, the oven door was not opened during the test. Forperspective, the annual energy savings expressed as cost is 42 cents for a standard

oven and 20 cents for a self-cleaning oven. This assumes a gas cost of $6.00/mmBtu, which is typical for the first year that any standard would be in effect, based on DOE projections.(10,11) DOE, in its Technical Support Document (TSD),(12) assumes that opening the door during the course of a cooking cycle does not have a significant effect on the energy savings.

### 2-4

Table 2-2. Effect on Energy Consumption of Windowed vs. Non-Windowed Doors (No Door Openings During Test)

Test Energy Test Energy Efficiency Efficiency With Without Annual With Without Window Window Energy Oven Window Window (Btu) (Btu) Savings Type (%) (%) Average Average (kBtu) Standard 6.13 6.42 7503 7155 69.8 Self-Clean 8.09 8.33 5679 5515 32.9 (Pyrolytic)

____________ ___________ ______________ ______________ ____________



### DOE concluded that the window could be removed and the cook could open the door to check on the cooking progress without significant energy loss. To test this hypothesis, the DOE test procedure was performed on both the standard and self-cleaning ovens without windows, but including two different sets of door openings. The ranges used were the same ranges used for the window versus non-window oven tests. For the first test, the oven door was fully opened seventeen times for four seconds at one minute intervals between door openings. Seventeen openings was picked as a starting value since the DOE stated4 that the loss from the door window is equilavent to seventeen door openings. The procedure was repeated, except that eight door openings were used during the DOE test procedure. Graphs 2-1 and 2-2 are plots of the data obtained from these tests showing the efficiency of a standard or self-cleaning oven without a window as a function of the number of door openings. The data clearly indicate that the energy lost per door opening is significant. If the DOE design option of eliminating the oven door window were to be adopted, it is reasonable to assume that a cook would open the door during the cooking cycle to check on cooking progress. Certain food items would require this to determine the optimum degree of cooking, from both appearance and quality standpoints. A minimum of four door openings was assumed to be a reasonable estimate of consumer actions in the absence of a window. Expert home economists have confirmed that this is a reasonable estimate (see 2-4 

### Table 2-2. Effect on Energy Consumption of Windowed vs. Non-Windowed Doors (N0 

### Door Openings During Test)
Test Energy Test Energy Efficiency Efficiency With Without Annual With Without Window Window Energy Oven Window Window (Btu) (Btu) Savings Type (%) (%) 

### Average Average (kBtu) Standard 6.13 6.42 7503 7155 69.8 Self-Clean 8.09 8.33 5679 5515 32.9 (Pyrolytic)

DOE concluded that the window could be removed and the cook could open the door to check on the cooking progress without significant energy loss. To test this hypothesis, the DOE test procedure was performed on both the standard and self-cleaning ovens without windows, but including two different sets ofdoor openings. The ranges used were the same ranges used for the window versus non-window oven tests. For the first test, the oven door was fully opened seventeen times for four seconds at one minute intervals between door openings. Seventeen openings was picked as a starting value since the DOE stated(4) that the loss from the door window is equilavent to seventeen door openings. The procedure was repeated, except that eight door openings were used during the DOE test procedure. Graphs 2-1 and 2-2 are plots ofthe data obtained from these tests showing the efficiency ofa standard or self-cleaning oven without a window as a function of the number ofdoor openings. The data clearly indicate that the energy lost per door opening is significant. Ifthe DOE design option ofeliminating the oven door window were to be adopted, it is reasonable to assume that a cook would open the door during the cooking cycle to check

on cooking progress. Certain food items would require this to determine the optimum degree ofcooking, from both appearance and quality standpoints. A minimum of four door openings was assumed to be a reasonable estimate ofconsumer actions in the absence ofa window. Expert home economists have confirmed that this is a reasonable estimate (see

# 65 6m4

o > C-) 

# 6.2 C) 

# 61 w

5Q9 

# No window



# 6


# o 2 4 6 8 

# 10 12 14 16 18 

# Number of Oven Door Openings •,!1%

Graph 2-1. Efficiency of a standard oven without a window as a function of the number of door openings 

# 6.5 6.4
o

# ~6.3**~** 

# o 

# ffi 6.2



# - o**~** 

# 6.1 

# w 6 

# 5.9 No window

Window



# o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of Oven Door Openings

Graph 2-1. Efficiency of a standard oven without a window as a function ofthe number of door openings N**~**

# 8.4 8.2

7.6 No window

Window



# 7.4 7.2 

# o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Number of Oven Door Openings

Graph 2-2. Efficiency of a self-cleaning oven without a window as a function of the number of door openings a' 

# 8.4 8.2 No window**~** 0 

# 8

... 

# >- 0 

## Window ffi 

# 7.8 

# .- 

# • 0

# ~ 

# 7.6 

# w 7.4 

# • 7.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number 

# of Oven 

# Door Openings

Graph 2-2. Efficiency of a self-cleaning oven without a window as a function ofthe number of door openings N I 0'\

### 2-7

Appendix C, Exhibit 1). It is quite likely that the time interval may be longer for actual consumer use than that assumed for the experimental data, thus further reducing any potential energy savings. The experimental measurements reported here are expected to be typical of currentranges on the market; however, extensive tests using ranges from several different manufacturers were not possible within the limited time between the publication of the NOPR andthe end of the comment period. Some variation in results for ranges from different manufacturers could be expected; however, this variation would not be expected to invalidate the conclusion that energy loss from door opening is significant.
Economics. With four door openings per test as described above, the self-cleaning oven without a window (the DOE design option) costs about 2 cents more per year tooperate than the same range ith a window (see Table 2-3). This means that for a selfcleaning oven, the DOE design option without a window will lose energy. The non-selfcleaning oven without a window (the DOE design option) saves about 24 cents per year (see Table 2-3). This means that for a standard oven, the DOE design option without a window does save a small amount of energy.
Table 2-3. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Remove Oven Door Window

Design Option Net Energy Saved, kBtu/yr Annualized Net Savings, $ Standard Oven, no door openings 60 0.43 Self-Clean Oven, no door openings 35 0.25 Standard Oven, 4 door openings 34 0.24 Self-Clean Oven, 4 door openings -3 -0.02

It is clear that this energy savings would not offset the decreased utility of the oven by eliminating a feature that is important to cooks. This is supported by the fact that consumers 2-7 

### Appendix C, Exhibit 1). It

### is quite likely that the time interval may be longer for actual

consumer use than that assumed for the experimental data, thus further reducing any potential energy savings. The experimental measurements reported here are expected to be typical ofcurrent ranges on the market; however, extensive tests using ranges from several different manufacturers were not possible within the limited time between the publication ofthe NOPR and the end ofthe comment period. Some variation in results for ranges from different manufacturers could be expected; however, this variation would not be expected to invalidate the conclusion that energy loss from door opening is significant.

Economics. With four door openings per test as described above, the self-cleaning

oven without a window (the DOE design option) costs about 2 cents more per year to operate than the same range with a window (see Table 2-3). This means that for a selfcleaning oven, the DOE design option without a window will lose energy. The non-selfcleaning oven without a window (the DOE design option) saves about 24 cents per year (see Table 2-3). This means that for a standard oven, the DOE design option without a window does save a small amount ofenergy.

Table 2-3. Economic Analysis ofDesign Option: Remove Oven Door Window

Net Energy Saved, Annualized Net Savings, Design Option kBtu/yr $ 

### Standard Oven, no door openings 

### 60 0.43 Self-Clean Oven, no door openings 35 0.25 Standard Oven, 4 door openings 34 0.24 Self-Clean Oven, 4 door openings -3 -0.02

It 

### is clear that this energy savings would not offset the decreased utility ofthe oven by eliminating a feature that is important to cooks. This is supported by the fact that consumers

### 2-8

(cooks) are willing to pay extra for a windowed oven door, as these models are usually more expensive than the same unit without a window.
Cooking Quality Concerns. The oven window is a feature appreciated by most consumers. The effects of this DOE design option on cooking quality were not addressed in the NOPR or the TSD. If a design option affects the cooking ability of an oven or produces results that are unacceptable to the consumer, it should not be mandated. The small amount of energy saved does not justify design options that impact food and cooking quality. The cost of ruining of meals because the cook could not observe the cooking process, or the modification of traditional or ethnic recipes to fit new oven characteristics that do not produce the expected results has greater cost implications than these projected potential energy savings. The window allows inspection without door openings that may cause failure of delicate food items, such as souffles, or unacceptable results for some foods. Elimination of the window can cause increased cooking time due to the heat losses per opening and, as shown, may actually result in an energy loss.
Safety Concerns. In addition to cooking quality concerns, of equal or perhaps greater importance are the safety issues. Each additional door opening while the oven is in use increases the risk of burns from exposed hot surfaces or steam. This is of special concern where children or physically limited individuals are nearby.

Other Issues. Under Section 325 (l)(4) of NAECA,' 42 U.S.C. Section 6295 (l)(4) and House Report No. 100-1 1,(13) the intent of the law "ensures that energy savings are not achieved through the loss of significant consumer features . . . This precludes DOE from promulgating a standard . . . that eliminates performance characteristics." Safety is included in examples of performance characteristics. The ORTECH14 study cited in the TSD4 to justify an efficiency increase for removing the door window states: 2-8 (cooks) are willing to pay extra for a windowed oven door, as these models are usually more expensive than the same unit without a window.


### Cooking Quality Concerns. The oven window is a feature appreciated by most

consumers. The effects ofthis DOE design option on cooking quality were not addressed in the NOPR or the TSD. Ifa design option affects the cooking ability of an oven or produces results that are unacceptable to the consumer, 

### it should not be mandated. The small amount ofenergy saved does notjustify design options that impact food and cooking qUality. The
cost ofruining of meals because the cook could not observe the cooking process, or the modification of traditional or ethnic recipes to fit new oven characteristics that do not produce the expected results has greater cost implications than these projected potential energy savings. The window allows inspection without door openings that may cause failure ofdelicate food items, such as souffles', or unacceptable results for some foods. Elimination ofthe window can cause increased cooking time due to the heat losses per opening and, as shown, may actually result in an energy loss.


### Safety Concerns. In addition to cooking quality concerns, of equal or perhaps greater importance are the safety issues. Each additional door opening while the oven is in use increases the risk ofbums from exposed hot surfaces or steam. This is of special concern where children or physically limited individuals are nearby.



### Other Issues. Under Section 

### 325 (1)(4) ofNAECA,(I) 

### 42 U.S.C. Section 

### 6295 (1)(4) and House Report No. 100-11,(13) the intent ofthe law "ensures that energy savings are not achieved through the loss of significant consumer features

... This precludes DOE from promUlgating a standard

. . . that eliminates performance characteristics." Safety is included in examples ofperformance characteristics. The ORTECH(14) study cited in the TSD(4) tojustify an efficiency increase for removing the door window states:2-9



### It is highly questionable, however, whether elimination of the oven window would be acceptable in the marketplace or would even result in any real energy savings, since the only way to check cooking progress would then be to open the oven door, which would increase energy losses. DOE's own 1980 Engineering Analysis'5 states: DOE believes that it is not necessa,y to propose separate classes for conventional ovens with solid doors and ovens with windows because the differences in energy efficiency are small enough so that basic models of each group can meet the minimum efficiency levels proposed.
2. Eiectric Ignition
Design Option. Electric ignition is a proposed design option for both cooktops and ovens. In the TSD, DOE analyzed cooktops and ovens as separate appliances, although more than 90 percent of the market is for the combined appliance or range. The economic analysis of this option should be considered for both cooktops and ovens together because electric ignition would be added to both or neither since ranges are sold as the combined unit. In determining life-cycle costs for this option, DOE applied maintenance costs to only the cooktop. The oven electric ignition system will also require maintenance and the probability of failure over the 19-year range life is expected to be similar for both the cooktop and the oven electric ignition devices. DOE assumed a maintenance cost of $80.91 for the gas cooktop due to the addition of electric ignition. This same cost was added to the oven in the economic analysis presented in this report. For cooktops, spark ignition is added. Efficiency, as measured by the DOE test procedure, does not change for cooktops with this option. The energy savings are obtained by the removal of the pilot light, increaseing the energy factor (EF) and decreasing overall gas consumption. However, because the ignition system on an oven is usually a "gb" system, which consumes about 47.8 kwh per year of electricity, the efficiency, as measured by the DOE test procedure, does decrease slightly for this option. Again, the EF will increase and overall gas consumption will decrease for this design option. 2-9 

### It is highly questionable, however, whether elimination of the oven window would be acceptable in the marketplace or would even result in any real energy savings, since the only way to check cooking progress would then be to 

### open the oven door, which would increase energy losses.
DOE's own 1980 Engineering Analysis(15) states: 

### DOE believes that it is not necessary topropose separate classesfor conventional ovens with solid doors and ovens with windows because the differences in energy efficiency are small enough so that basic models of each group can meet the minimum efficiency levels proposed.

2. Electric Ignition

Design Option. Electric ignition is a proposed design option for both cooktops and

ovens. In the TSD, DOE analyzed cooktops and ovens as separate appliances, although

more than 90percent ofthe market is for the combined appliance or range. The economic analysis ofthis option should be considered for both cooktops and ovens together because electric ignition would be added to both or neither since ranges are sold as the combined unit. In determining life-cycle costs for this option, DOE applied maintenance costs to only the cooktop. The oven electric ignition system will also require maintenance and the probability offailure over the 19-year range life is expected to be similar for both the cooktop and the oven electric ignition devices. DOE assumed a maintenance cost of $80.91 for the gas cooktop due to the addition ofelectric ignition. This same cost was added to the

oven in the economic analysis presented in this report. For cooktops, spark ignition is added. Efficiency, as measured by the DOE test procedure, does not change for cooktops with this option. The energy savings are obtained by the removal ofthe pilot light, increaseing the energy factor (EF) and decreasing overall gas consumption. However, because the ignition system on an oven is usually a "glo" system, which consumes about 47.8 kwh per year ofelectricity, the efficiency, as measured by the DOE test procedure, does decrease slightly for this option. Again, the EF will increase and overall gas consumption will decrease for this design option.

### 2-10

The National Electrical Code'6 requires a three-prong, grounded outlet within 6 feet of an appliance. Therefore, for a majority of cases where a piloted range would be replaced by an electric ignition range, as well as for new installations, an electric outlet would have to be installed behind the range. For ranges, an electrical outlet installation cost of $96.00 was used in this report for the life-cycle costing. For ovens and cooktops treated as separate appliances, the full cost of an electrical outlet installation was used. The life-cycle costing was also conducted without the cost of an electrical outlet included (see Appendix A). The proportion of installations needing a grounded electrical outlet is unknown; however, according to AHAM, 23.4 percent of all gas ranges and 8.3 percent of gas cooktops shipped in 1993 had piloted ignition. This indicates that a significant portion of the range replacement market would require new or updated electrical outlet installation. Many rural and low-income housing units use piloted ranges because of their lower initial cost.
Economics. The economic analysis was first performed for the cooktop and oven separately for more direct comparison to DOE's analysis. Two additional cases were analyzed to include the cost of an outlet installation for cooktop and oven. Two summary cases were also analyzed for the combined cooktop and oven range (with and without outletinstallation) since, as mentioned above, this represents 90 percent of the market. Manufacturers' cost estimates from AHAM for electric ignition of $7.24 for cooktops and $13.38 for ovens (in 1994 dollars) were used in the economic analysis. This option is not economically justified for ovens, cooktops, or ranges if the cost of an electric outlet is included in the analysis (see Table 2-4). If the cost of an outlet is not included, a cooktop, considered as a separate appliance, shows an annualized net savings of $5.14. An oven, considered as a separate appliance, shows an annualized net savings' of- -$2.09 (a net loss). The combined cooktop and oven (range) shows an annualized net savings of $3.05 (see Appendix A for complete life-cycle analysis of all combinations). 2-10 

### The National Electrical Code(16) requires a three-prong, grounded outlet within 6 feet of an appliance. Therefore, for a majority of cases where a piloted range would be replaced by an electric ignition range, as well as for new installations, an electric outlet would have to be installed behind the range. For ranges, an electrical outlet installation cost of $96.00

was used in this report for the life-cycle costing. For ovens and cooktops treated as separate appliances, the full cost of an electrical outlet installation was used. The life-cycle costing was also conducted without the cost of an electrical outlet included (see Appendix A). The proportion ofinstallations needing a grounded electrical outlet is unknown; however, according to AHAM, 23.4 percent of all gas ranges and 8.3 percent ofgas cooktops shipped in 1993 had piloted ignition. This indicates that a significant portion ofthe range replacement market would require new or updated electrical outlet installation. Many rural and low-income housing units use piloted ranges because of their lower initial cost.



### Economics. The economic analysis was first performed for the cooktop and oven separately for more direct comparison to DOE's analysis. Two additional cases were analyzed to include the cost ofan outlet installation for cooktop and oven. Two summary
cases were also analyzed for the combined cooktop and oven range (with and without outlet installation) since, as mentioned above, this represents 90 percent of the market. Manufacturers' cost estimates from AHAM for electric ignition of $7.24 for cooktops and $13.38 for

ovens (in 1994 dollars) were used in the economic analysis. This option is not economicallyjustified for ovens, cooktops, or ranges if the cost of

an electric outlet is included in the analysis (see Table 2-4). If

### the cost ofan outlet is not included, a cooktop, considered as a separate appliance, shows an annualized net savings of$5.14. An oven, considered as a separate appliance, shows an annualized net savings of-$2.09 (a net loss). The combined cooktop and oven (range) shows an annualized net savings of $3.05 (see Appendix A for complete life-cycle analysis of all combinations).

### 2-11

As shown in Table 2-4, no cases are economically justified if installation and maintenance costs are included in the life-cycle costing.

Table 2-4. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Electric Ignition

Including Installation and Maintenance Costs

Design Option Net Energy Saved, kBtu/yr Annualized

Net Savings, $ Cooktop (stand alone appliance) 2050 -2.92 Standard Oven (stand alone appliance) 1489 -10.15 Combined Cooktop & Oven (Range) 3539 -5.01

3. Improved Door Seals
Design Option. Consultations with manufacturers indicate that oven door seals have been greatly improved since the 1977 SAl report'7 cited by DOE.'4 The 7 percent (0.41 percentage points for standard ovens and 0.5 percentage points for self-cleaning ovens) efficiency improvement associated with improved door seals is not applicable for gas ovens, based on a thorough review of DOE's cited documentation. The SAl report states:

This improvement applies primarily to standard electric ovens with little impact on gas-fired standard ovens or self-cleaning ovens. For gas ovens, the amount of air coming through the door seals is small compared to the combustion products flowing through the oven. Therefore, improvement of door seals has a negligible effect on gas oven efficiency. (17) [page 6-23] The SAl report17 [Executive Summary, p. 11] lists improved oven door seals as "infeasible" for gas standard ovens and "not applicable" for gas self-clean ovens.
Economics. Even if a 1 percent improvement could be achieved, this option is not economically justified using the DOE's estimates for the cost of implementing this design option and the other fixed assumptions in this study (see Table 2-5). 2-11 As shown in Table 2-4, no cases are economicallyjustified ifinstallation and maintenance costs are included in the life-cycle costing.

Table 2-4. Economic Analysis ofDesign Option: Electric Ignition Including Installation and Maintenance Costs

Net Energy Annualized Design Option Saved, kBtu/yr Net Savings, $ Cooktop (stand alone appliance) 2050 -2.92 Standard Oven (stand alone appliance) 1489 -10.15 Combined Cooktop & Oven (Range) 3539 -5.01

3. Improved Door Seals
Design Option. Consultations with manufacturers indicate that oven door seals have been greatly imprOVed since the 1977 SAl report(17) cited by DOE.(14) The 7 percent (0.41 percentage points for standard ovens and 0.5 percentage points for self-cleaning ovens) efficiency improvement associated with improved door seals is not applicable for gas ovens, based on a thorough review ofDOE's cited documentation. The SAl report states: 

### This improvement appliesprimarily to standard electric ovens with little impact on gas-firedstandard ovens orself-cleaning ovens . . . For gas ovens, the amount of air coming through the door seals is small compared to the combustionproductsflowing through the oven. Therefore, improvement of door seals has a negligible effect on gas oven ejJiciencyJ17) [page 6-23J

. The SAl report(l7) [Executive Summary, p. 11] lists improved oven door seals as "infeasible" for gas standard ovens and "not applicable" for gas self-clean ovens.

Economics. Even if a 1 percent improvement could be achieved, this option is not economicallyjustified using the DOE's estimates for the cost ofimplementing this design option and the other fixed assumptions in this study (see Table 2-5).2-12



### Table 2-5. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Improved Door SeaLs

Design Option Net Energy Saved, kBtu/yr Annualized Net Savings, $ Standard Oven 13 -0.18 Self-Clean Oven 11 -0.21

Cooking Quality. Oven door seals have been optimized over many years by the manufacturers to provide desired cooking quality. Some flow through the door seai is required in a gas oven. Reducing or eliminating this air flow would provide unacceptable cooking results, primarily in the uniformity of baked products such as cookies and breadswhere multiple racks of product are cooked. Consultations with the manufacturers confirmed that the energy savings proposed by DOE resulting from improved oven door seals are not possible without detriment to the quality of the cooked food.

4. Forced Convection
Design Option. This design option adds a fan and control components to circulate heated air in the oven cavity to increase heat transfer to the items being cooked. Forced convection gas ovens are a very small fraction of the residential market (currently available on commercial-look ranges only). Gas range manufacturers are considering the introduction of new gas ovens that incorporate convection as a cooking option, but not as a required mode ofcooking.
Economics. The cost of manufacturing a gas convection oven is considerably more than its electric counterpart since forced convection can interfere with the combustion process, requiring partial isolation of the combustion chamber from the oven cavity. Simply adding a fan and controls, as is the case for electric convection ovens, is not practical for gas ovens. Cost estimates for gas convection ovens were submitted by manufacturers to 2-12 Table 2-5. Economic Analysis ofDesign Option: Improved Door Seals

Net Energy Saved, Annualized Net Savings, Design Option kBtu/yr $ Standard Oven 13 -0.18 Self-Clean Oven 11 -0.21

Cooking Quality. Oven door seals have been optimized over many years by the manufacturers to provide desired cooking quality. Some flow through the door seal is required in a gas oven. Reducing or eliminating this air flow would provide unacceptable cooking results, primarily in the uniformity ofbaked products such as cookies and breads where multiple racks ofproduct are cooked. Consultations with.the manufacturers confirmed that the energy savings proposed by DOE resulting from improved oven door seals·

are not possible without detriment to the quality ofthe cooked food.

4. Forced Convection
Design Option. This design option adds a fan and control components to circulate heated air in the oven cavity to increase heat transfer to the items being cooked. Forced convection gas ovens are a very small fraction of the residential market (currently available

on commercial-look ranges only). Gas range manufacturers are considering the introduction ofnew gas ovens that incorporate convection as a cooking option, but not as a required mode ofcooking.

Economics. The cost of manufacturing a gas convection oven is considerably more than its electric counterpart since forced convection can interfere with the combustion process, requiring partial isolation of the combustion chamber from the oven cavity. Simply adding a fan and controls, as is the case for electric convection ovens, is not practical for gas ovens. Cost estimates for gas convection ovens were submitted by manufacturers to

### 2-13

AHAM and subsequently transmitted to Battelle as an average. The averaged added cost of this forced convection design option is $51.77 to manufacturers in 1994 dollars (converted to 1990 dollars for the life-cycle cost analysis). In addition, the fan will probably not last the entire life of the range (19 years), so maintenance costs, estimated to be about $65.00, must also be considered in life-cycle calculations. Based on manufacturers' measurements using the DOE efficiency test procedure,3 the efficiency of an electric forced convection oven increases by about 5.5 percent. Because there is more natural convection in a standard gas oven than in a standard electric oven, the efficiency increase for a gas oven is expected to be less than that for an electric oven. However, even using the increased efficiency value for an electric oven, this design option is not life-cycle cost justified (see Table 2-6 and Chapter 5).

Table 2-6. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Forced Convection
Net Energy Annualized Net Design Option Saved, kBtu/yr Savings, $ Forced Convection, Standard Oven (assuming 68 -14.67 electric ignition)

Cooking Quality. No residential oven manufacturer is considering a unit that offers convection as the only cooking mode. Cooking with convection has advantages for some foods and disadvantages for others. In many cases, foods will cook more quickly and at a lower temperature than in a conventional oven, which usually will save a small quantity of energy. Other foods will cook unacceptably using convection and will not produce the desired results from traditional recipes. As a general statement, cooking with convection produces results that are different from conventional cooking, arid the consumer must have the option of choosing the cooking mode that suits the particular food being cooked. 2-13 AHAM and subsequently transmitted to Battelle as an average. The averaged added cost of this forced convection design option is $51.77 to manufacturers in 1994 dollars (converted to 1990 dollars for the life-cycle cost analysis). In addition, the fan will probably not last the entire life of the range (19 years), so maintenance costs, estimated to be about $65.00, must also be considered in life-cycle calculations. Based on manufacturers' measurements using the DOE efficiency test procedure,(3) the efficiency ofan electric forced convection oven increases by about 5.5 percent. Because there is more natural convection in a standard gas oven than in a standard electric oven, the efficiency increase for a gas oven is expected to be less than that for an electric oven. However, even using the increased efficiency value for an electric oven, this design option is
not life-cycle costjustified (see Table 2-6 and Chapter 5).

Table 2-6. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Forced Convection

Net Energy Annualized Net Design Option Saved, kBtu/yr Savings, $ Forced Convection, Standard Oven (assuming 68 -14.67 electric ignition)

Cooking Quality. No residential oven manufacturer is considering a unit that offers convection as the only cooking mode. Cooking with convection has advantages for some foods and disadvantages for others. In many cases, foods will cook more quickly and at a lower temperature than in a conventional oven, which usually will save a small quantity of energy. Other foods will cook unacceptably using convection and will not produce the desired results from traditional recipes. As a general statement, cooking with convection produces results that are different from conventional cooking, and the consumer must have the option ofchoosing the cooking mode that suits the particular food being cooked.

### 2-14

Even if forced convection were determined to be economically justified, requiring it asa mandated design option would greatly affect cooking quality (see Chapter 6 and Appendix C, Exhibits 2 and 3) and consumer expectations. As proposed, the DOE design option of full-time convection would be required on all standard gas ovens. Although forced convection is a good method to reduce the cooking times and temperatures on some foods, not all foods should be cooked using this method. According to the operating manual'8 for an electric convection oven currently on the market:

• . . because of variations in food density, suiface texture and consistency, there are a few foods that may be prepared more successfidly in the radiant-heat Standard Bake mode. For this reason, Standard Bake mode is recommended when preparing baked 

### goods such as pumpkin pie and custard. The user may find other foods that are also prepared more consistently in Standard Bake mode. This is perfectly normal. In addition, energy consumption and food quality using convection ovens has been shown to be quite variable,19 depending on the particular food being cooked. Some foods cooked in a convection oven can actually use more energy than in a standard oven. (20) Requiring this option for standard (radiant-heat) ovens may eliminate this product class, because standard ovens would then become more expensive than self-cleaning ovens. Forced convection ovens offer distinct cooking options and should be a separate product class due to their unique cooking characteristics.

5. Reduce Burner Excess Air
Design Option. This design option applies only to cooktops. The amount of increased efficiency achievable with this option is unknown and not measurable based on the DOE citations. The engineering analysis cited'5 claims an efficiency increase of 7.5 percent over the baseline range (3 points above the baseline); however, the efficiency improvement results from unknown redesign and shrouding. The DOE reference claims that the percentage improvements cited were based on more efficient units on the market at the time of the report. The analysis is unclear as to 2-14 

### Evenifforced convection were determined to be economicallyjustified, requiring it as
a mandated design option would greatly affect cooking quality (see Chapter 6 and Appendix C, Exhibits 2 and 3) and consumer expectations. As proposed, the DOE design option offull-time convection would be required on all standard gas ovens. Although forced convection is a good method to reduce the cooking times and temperatures on some foods,· not all 

### foods should be cooked using this method. According to the operating manual(18) for

an electric convection oven currently on the market:

. . . because of variations infood density, surface texture and consistency, there are afewfoods that may beprepared more successfully in the radiant-heat Standard Bake mode. For this reason, Standard Bake mode is recommended when preparing baked goods such aspumpkinpie and custard. The user mayfind other foods that are alsoprepared more consistently in Standard Bake mode. This isperfectly normal.
In 

### addition, energy consumption and food quality using convection ovens has been shown to be quite variable,(19) depending on the particular food being cooked. Some foods cooked in a convection oven can actually use more energy than in a standard oven. (20) 

### Requiring this option for standard (radiant-heat) ovens may eliminate this product class, because standard ovens would then become more expensive than self-cleaning ovens. Forced convection ovens offer distinct cooking options and should be a separate product class due to their unique cooking characteristics.



### 5. Reduce Burner Excess Air
Design Option. This design option applies only to cooktops. The amount of increased efficiency achievable with this option is unknown and not measurable based on the DOE citations. The engineering analysis cited(lS) claims an efficiency increase of7.5 percent
over the baseline range (3 points above the baseline); however, the efficiency improvement results from unknown redesign and shrouding. The DOE reference claims that the percentage improvements cited were based on
more efficient units on the market at the time ofthe report. The analysis is unclear as to

. \2-15



### whether the units used to determine the efficiency improvement were actual burners with reduced excess air or ifthe efficiency improvement is from a theoretical analysis.
Safety Concerns. The potential for increased carbon monoxide exists for burners with reduced excess air. This option needs to be analyzed in detail because of safety and indoor air quality considerations.
Economics. No economic analysis of this design option is possible, based on the limited information available. Since this option cannot be evaluated using the DOE test procedure, it cannot be justified as a mandated option for cooktops.

Conclusions Concerning The New DOE Design Options


### The analyses reported here show that none of the new DOE design options proposed in the NOPR3 can be justified based on life-cycle cost, loss of consumer utility, safety, technical considerations, or food quality considerations. One design option, reduce burner excess air, cannot be evaluated with available information. Therefore, none of these new design options show justification to be mandated for kitchen ranges or ovens. 2-15 

### whether the units used to determine the efficiency improvement were actual burners with reduced excess air or ifthe efficiency improvement is from a theoretical analysis.
Safety Concerns. The potential for increased carbon monoxide exists for burners with reduced excess air. This option needs to be analyzed in detail because of safety and indoor air 

### quality considerations.

Economics. No economic analysis ofthis design option is possible, based on the 

### limited information available. Since this option cannot be evaluated using the DOE test procedure, it 

### cannot bejustified as a mandated option for cooktops.

Conclusions Concerning The New DOE Design Options

The analyses reported here show that none of the new DOE design options proposed in the NOPR(3) can bejustified based on life-cycle cost, loss ofconsumer utility, safety, technical 

### considerations, or food quality considerations. One design option, reduce burner

excess air, cannot be evaluated with available information. Therefore, none of these new design options showjustification to be mandated for kitchen ranges or ovens.

### 3. OTHER DOE DESIGN OPTIONS

This chapter analyzes the design options that were first published in the ANOPR9 and that DOE determined to be life-cycle justified in the NOPR.3 The previously issued GRI report8 analyzed these design options in detail. Additional analysis completed since the publication of the NOPR is presented in this chapter. The life-cycle cost analysis results from the GRI report have been updated for all of the DOE design options determined by DOE to be cost-effective. This was done so that all of the life-cycle cost information uses the same economic assumptions and is reported in one document. 

### The design options covered in this chapter, all related to ovens, are: 1. Reduced Vent Rate (Standard Ovens) 2. Reflective Surfaces (Standard and Self-Cleaning Ovens) 3. Added Insulation (Standard and Self-Cleaning Ovens) 4. Reduced Thermal Mass (Standard and Self-Cleaning Ovens) 5. Improved Insulation (Standard Ovens). Table 3-1 summarizes the results of the analysis of the above design options.

1. Reduced Vent Rate
Design Option. Energy efficiency is expected to be increased by reducing the oven vent size so as to lower the oven vent rate. This option was proposed for the standard oven only. The added cost to the consumer of this design option, according to DOE, is $4.74.
Experimental Tests. Parallel experimental and analytical studies were conducted to determine the effects on oven energy consumption of reduced vent rate by reduction of vent size.8 Good agreement was obtained between the measured values of energy consumption and those predicted by analytical means. The analytical study correctly predicted that gross reduction of vent cross section did indeed save energy, but did not deal with other 3. OTHER DOE DESIGN OPTIONS

This chapter analyzes the design options that were first published in the ANOPR(9) and

-- that DOE determined to be life-cyclejustified in the NOPR.(3) The previously issued GRI report(8) analyzed these design options in detail. Additional analysis completed since the publication ofthe NOPR is presented in this chapter. The life-cycle cost analysis results from the GRI report have been updated for all ofthe DOE design options determined by DOE to be cost-effective. This was done so that all ofthe life-cycle cost information uses the same economic assumptions and is reported in one document. The design options covered in this chapter, all related to ovens, are: 1. Reduced Vent Rate (Standard Ovens) 2. Reflective Surfaces (Standard and Self-Cleaning Ovens) 3. Added Insulation (Standard and Self-Cleaning Ovens) 4. Reduced Thermal Mass (Standard and Self-Cleaning Ovens) 5. Improved Insulation (Standard Ovens).
Table 3-1 summarizes the results ofthe analysis ofthe above design options.

1, Reduced Vent Rate


### Design Option. Energy efficiency is expected to be increased by reducing the oven vent size so as to lower the oven vent rate. This option was proposed for the standard oven only. The added cost to the consumer ofthis design option, according to DOE, is $4.74.
Experimental Tests. Parallel experimental and analytical studies were conducted to determine the effects on oven energy consumption ofreduced vent rate by reduction ofvent size.(8) Good agreement was obtained between the measured values ofenergy consumption and those predicted by analytical means. The analytical study correctly predicted that gross reduction ofvent cross section did indeed save energy, but did not deal with other3-2



### Table 3-1. Summary of Impacts of ANOPR Design Options on Gas Kitchen Ranges

and Ovens

DOE Design Option Reduce vent rate, standard oven Reflective surtace, ovens a Added insulation, ovens a Reduced thermal mass, ovens a Improved insulation, ovens a Potential Issues



# , 4. 0.03 N (0.36) 

### t (12.6) N std (6.15) sc (5.74) U
0 0 N std (1.77) sc(1.77) U 1. 0.58 b N (Loss) I t (0.05) N (Loss) U a. Both standard and self-cleaning b. For removal of 5.52 lbs = - ,



### • m

• • • 3-2



### Table 3-1. Summary ofImpacts of ANOPR Design Options on Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

DOE Design Option Reduce vent rate,

standard oven J. 0.03 N (0.36) 

# • • 

# • Reflective surface, i std (6.15)

ovens a (12.6) N sc (5.74) 

# • 

# • • Added insulation, std (1.77)

ovens a 0 0 N sc (1.77) 

# • 

# • Reduced thermal

mass, ovens a J. O.58 b N (Loss) 

# • 

# • • • Improved insulation, i

ovens a (0.05) N (Loss) 

# •

a. Both standard and self-cleaning b. For removal of 5.52 Ibs3-3



### parameters such as performance, utility, emissions, and safety standards. When the vent size was reduced to the point where the energy savings began to increase dramatically, it was observed that the oven showed increased venting around the door bottom and seal, which increased external surface temperatures. Also, carbon monoxide levels began to increase rapidly with reduced vent size. Figure 3-1 shows the effect of reducing vent size on both oven energy consumption and surface temperatures. At reduced vent sizes that result in acceptable combustion, surface temperatures below standards requirements, and no venting around the door seal, experimental tests show no significant savings.8 The tests showed an increase in efficiency of about 0.03 percentage point rather than the 0.62 percentage point increase estimated in the Technical Support Document (TSD). (4) 

### The TSD quoted the 0.62 percentage point increase as an average from AHAM dataand ADM Associates ana1ysis. The AHAM data showed an increase of less than 1 percent but AHAM also stated:'

• . . the reduction in vent size could seriously effect JsicJ combustion products as well as cookability and have a much more negative effect on the environment (and the ability to pass AGA test) than any positive effects one would gain from slightly improved efficiency.The ADM document does report an energy efficiency improvement of 0.7 percentage point, but only for electric standard ovens. According to ADM, the reduced vent option:
• . is not applicable for natural gas ovens. The difference in vent

diameters between standard and self-cleaning gas ovens is not significantly d?fferent, as a satisfactory combustion environment must be maintained [pg. 9-9].
Economics. This design option was determined not to be justified in the GRI report8 [pgs. 7-19 to 7-20] on the basis of the experimental measurements. With an efficiency increase of 0.03 percentage points and cost increase as described above, this design option is not economically justified (see Chapter 5, Economic Analysis, and Table 3-2). 3-3 parameters such as performance, utility, emissions, and safety standards. When the vent size

was reduced to the point where the energy savings began to increase dramatically, it was observed that the oven showed increased venting around the door bottom and seal, which increased external surface temperatures. Also, carbon monoxide levels began to increase rapidly with reduced vent size. Figure 3-1 shows the effect ofreducing vent size on both

oven energy consumption and surface temperatures. At reduced vent sizes that result in acceptable combustion, surface temperatures below standards requirements, and no venting around the door seal, experimental tests show no significant savings.(8) The tests showed an increase in efficiency of about 0.03 percentage point rather than the 0.62 percentage point increase estimated in the Technical Support Document (TSD). (4) The TSD quoted the 0.62 percentage point increase as an average from AHAM data and ADM Associates analysis.(22) The AHAM data showed an increase ofless than 1 percent but AHAM also stated:(21)

... the reduction in vent size could seriously effect [sic] combustion products as well as cookability and have a much more negative effect on the environment (and the ability to pass AGA test) than any positive effects one would gainfrom slightly improved efficiency.
The ADM(22) document does report an energy efficiency improvement of0.7 percentage point, but only for electric standard ovens. According to ADM, the reduced vent option:

... is not applicablefor natural gas ovens. The difference in vent diameters between standard and self-cleaning gas ovens is not significantly different, as a satisfactory combustion environment must be maintained [pg. 9-9].

Economics. This design option was determined not to bejustified in the GRI report(8) [pgs. 7-19 to 7-20] on the basis ofthe experimental measurements. With an efficiency increase of0.03 percentage points and cost increase as described above, this design option is not economicallyjustified (see Chapter 5, Economic Analysis, and Table 3-2).

### 3-4

C 0 0. E
C 0

0 C 'U C 0 

### a -1 C 0

9 

### 1d

-1' 

### 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Area Reduction, %

Figure 3-1. Effect of reducing vent size on energy consumption and

surface temperature 210_

200



### 190 ci. 180 E 0 I-. 0 

### 170

160

150

140 3-4



### 2

'it



# - Energy Consumption

# J + c 0


# -- 

# - Co 

### E ;::, G 

### -4 c 0 CJ 

### Door Temperatures >0- 

### -6 eft


# ... 0 

### • 

### • c 

## w -8 • 

### c 152 F Standards limit CD 

### 01-10 c G 

### • .c CJ



### ..12 

### • -14 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Area Reduction, %



### Figure 3-1. Effect ofreducing vent size on energy consumption and surface temperature 

### 210

200

190 u..



# - . Q. 

### 180 

# e CDICD 

### 170 0 

# • 

# - ... :2 

### 160 fI)



# ... 0 0 

## c

130 90

- \

### 3-5

Table 3-2. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Reduced Vent Rate

Design Option Net Energy Saved, kBtu/yr Annualized Net Savings, $ Standard Oven 

# [ 7 -0.36

Cooking Quality Concerns. Even if this option had provided significant energysavings, additional testing and analysis would be needed to address areas of cooking performance and moisture venting. This option affects air flow, heat distribution, and moisture retention in the oven, which are all crucial to cooking quality. The primary function of the vent (for a gas oven) is to exhaust the products of combustion and the moisture produced by both the foods and the gas combustion during the cooking process. If the vent size is reduced or restricted, moisture and heat can collect near the vent outlet with the possibility of overcooking foods situated in that area. Over the past several decades, oven and range manufacturers have optimized the vent size and position to provide acceptable cooking quality for a wide variety of food products. Any design changes to either the oven vent or the door seal would affect food quality and, for some foods, make the cooking results unacceptable to the consumer.
Safety. Restricting the vent will also influence venting through the door seal, which is an undesirable effect that can increase oven surface temperatures and lead to oven safety problems. Safety concerns associated with reducing the vent rate include increased surface temperatures, increased levels of carbon monoxide and other combustion products, and accumulation of steam, which would pose an increased risk of burns when the oven door is opened. 3-5 

### Table 3-2. Economic Analysis ofDesign Option: Reduced Vent Rate

Net Energy Saved, Annualized Net Savings, Design Option kBtu/yr $ 

# I

Standard Oven 

# I 7 

# I -0.36 

# I

Cooking Quality Concerns. Even if this option had provided significant energy savings, additional testing and analysis would be needed to address areas ofcooking performance and moisture venting. This option affects air flow, heat distribution, and moisture retention in the oven, which are all crucial to cooking quality. The primary function of the vent (for a gas oven) is to exhaust the products of combustion and the moisture produced by both the foods and the gas combustion during the cooking process. If

### the vent size is reduced or restricted, moisture and heat can collect near the vent outlet with the possibility of overcooking foods situated in that area. Over the past several decades, oven and range manufacturers have optimized the vent size 

### and position to provide acceptable cooking quality for a wide variety of food products. Any design changes to either the oven vent or the door seal 

### would affect food quality and, for some foods, make the cooking results unacceptable to the consumer.
Safety. Restricting the vent will also influence venting through the door seal, which is

an undesirable effect that can increase oven surface temperatures and lead to oven safety problems. Safety concerns associated with reducing the vent rate include increased surface temperatures, increased levels ofcarbon monoxide and other combustion products, and accumulation of steam, which would pose an increased risk ofbums when the oven door is opened.

### 3-6

2. Reflective Surfaces
Design Option. Reflective surfaces have been claimed to increase oven efficiency by "reflecting and retaining infrared radiation within the oven cavity, thus increasing the - percentage of useful heat."4 [pg. 1-251 This option would cost an additional $57.38 (AHAM) to consumers based on manufacturers' estimates and an appropriate markup to

consumer. (8)


### Experimental Tests. Experimental data show that adding reflective surfaces in gas ovens does not result in increased efficiency. Chrome plating the inner surfaces of the oven resulted in a 12.61 percent decrease in energy efficiency.8 The increased reflectance caused repeated thermostat cycling, which might have contributed to the higher energy consumption. As DOE recognized for gas cooktops, concern about maintaining the reflectivity of oven surfaces is an important factor to consider3 [pg. 10518]. This would be an even greater problem for ovens, especially self-cleaning ovens, since the high self-cleaning temperatures would destroy any known usable reflective surface during the first self-cleaning cycle. Food spills, darkening from heat, and cleaning compounds would affect the reflective surfaces, making cooking results unpredictable.
Cooking Quality. Extensive cooking tests would be required to accurately determine the effects of this option on food quality. Overbrowning of surfaces with subsequent underdone interiors for meat products is certainly a possibility. This option would cause unpredictable cooking results and require extensive monitoring of the cooking process. Since the surface would soon lose its reflective quality, which is not likely to be able to be restored by conventional cleaning methods, this design option seems impractical while showing increased energy usage, as indicated from the experimental study.
Economic Analysis. Because this design option increases gas consumption, it cannot be economically justified (see Table 3-3). 3-6 2. Reflective Surfaces
Design Option. Reflective surfaces have been claimed to increase oven efficiency by "reflecting and retaining infrared radiation within the oven cavity, thus increasing the percentage ofuseful heat. ,,(4) [pg. 1-25] This option would cost an additional $57.38 (AHAM) to consumers based on manufacturers' estimates and an appropriate markup to
consumer.(8)
Experimental Tests. Experimental data show that adding reflective surfaces in gas
ovens does not result in increased efficiency. Chrome plating the inner surfaces of the oven resulted in a 12.61 percent decrease in energy efficiency.(8) The increased reflectance caused repeated thermostat cycling, which might have contributed to the higher energy consumption. As DOE recognized for gas cooktops, concern about maintaining the reflectivity of

oven surfaces is an important factor to consider(3) [pg. 10518]. This would be an even greater problem for ovens, especially self-cleaning ovens, since the high self-cleaning temperatures would destroy any known usable reflective surface during the first self-cleaning cycle. Food spills, darkening from heat, and cleaning compounds would affect the reflective surfaces, making cooking results unpredictable.
Cooking Quality. Extensive cooking tests would be required to accurately determine the effects ofthis option on food quality. Overbrowning of surfaces with subsequent underdone interiors for meat products is certainly a possibility. This option would cause unpredictable cooking results and require extensive monitoringof the cooking process. Since the surface would soon lose its reflective quality, which is not likely to be able to be restored by conventional cleaning methods, this design option seems impractical while showing increased energy usage, asindicated from the experimental study.

Economic Analysis. Because this design option increases gas consumption, it cannot be economicallyjustified (see Table 3-3).

### 3-7

Table 3-3. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Reflective Surfaces
Design Option Net Energy Saved, kBtu/yr Annualized Net Savings,



## $ rStandard Oven -185 -6.15 Self-Clean Oven -129 -5.74

3. Added Insulation
Design Option. Increasing the insulation thickness (from 2 inches to 4 inches) is proposed as a means to improve the energy efficiency of ovens. The sources used in the TSD4 are the 1980 DOE Engineering Ana1ysis'5 and AHAM data. However, AHAM stated: Typically, the duration of the DOE bake test is under one hour.

Medium density insulation of approximately 1 inch thickness, or less should hold the heat just as sufficiently for this period of time as more &pensive high density and/or thicker insulation.

. . Extra insulation is added presently to retain the cavity heat, for faster cooking, but to protect against ove[r] temperature of oven components and kitchen wall surfaces. The Engineering Analysis does include information for added insulation for gas ovens but it shows significantly lower efficiency increases than those cited for electric ovens. The TSD indicates that an increase of 1.4 percentage points is an average of AHAM data (<0.1 percent) and Engineering Analysis data (for electric standard oven = 2.3 points). This average is the value DOE used in its analysis. However, for gas ovens the Engineering Analysis reports only a 0.4 percentage point increase for standard gas ovens resulting from implementing bQth 4 inches of insulation 4 reducing the vent rate15 [pg. D7-9]. Hence, the percentage increase in efficiency for standard gas ovens for the addition of insulation must be less than 0.4 points. A value less than 0.4 percentage points was not used by DOE in its analysis for gas ovens. 3-7


### Table 3-3. Economic Analysis ofDesign Option: Reflective Surfaces
Net Energy Saved, Annualized Net Savings, Design Option kBtu/yr $ 

# I

Standard Oven 

# I -185 

# I -6.15 -129 -5.74 : Self-Clean Oven



### 3. Added Insulation
Design Option. Increasing the insulation thickness (from 2 inches to 4 inches) is proposed as a means to improve the energy efficiency ofovens. The sources used in the TSD(4) are the 1980 DOE Engineering Analysis(15) and AHAM data. However, AHAM stated: Typically, the duration ofthe DOE bake test is under one hour. Medium density insulation of approximately 1 inch thickness, or less should hold the heatjust as sufficientlyfor thisperiod of time as more expensive high density and/or thicker insulation.

. . Extra insulation is addedpresently not to retain the cavity heat,for faster cooking, but toprotect against ove[r] temperature of oven components and kitchen wall sUrfaces. (23) 

# I

The Engineering Analysis does include information for added insulation for gas ovens but it shows significantly lower efficiency increases than those cited for electric ovens. The TSD indicates that an increase of 1.4 percentage points is an average of AHAM data «0.1 percent) and Engineering Analysis data (for electric standard oven = 2.3 points)

.. This average is the value DOE used in its analysis. However, for gas ovens the Engineering Analysis reports only a 0.4 percentage point increase for standard gas ovens resulting from implementing QQ!h 4 inches ofinsulation and reducing the vent rate(15) [pg. D7-9]. Hence, the percentage increase in efficiency for standard gas ovens for the addition of insulation must be less than 0.4 points. A value less than 0.4 percentage points was not used by DOE in its analysis for gas ovens.

### 3-8

In addition, ADM [pg. 9-111 reported that:

• . . fiJncreased insulation thickness was not considered a viable option, as it requires a reduction in cavity size and a corresponding reduction in conswner utility. Adding insulation to an oven will not directly affect food quality except that it may require a reduced oven capacity. Most of the ranges produced today are made to fit in a 30-inch space and the only way to add insulation would be to decrease the oven cavity size. This would result in a loss of utility to the consumer. A large oven size is one of the most significant advertised marketing features for ovens and is valued by the consumer.
Analytical Modeling. Analytical modeling indicated that there would be n. increase in energy efficiency when comparing 3- or 4-inch insulation with the 2-inch insulation in the baseline gas oven.
Experimental Tests. Experimental data indicated that a slight efficiency increase could be achieved by adding insulation in the broiler compartment of a conventional gas oven where typically there is no insulation.8 This option does not exist for a self-cleaning oven. The GRI report provides additional details about these tests. As was mentioned previously, thicker insulation is added to ovens for surface temperature considerations, not for heat retention or faster cooking cycles. Insulation has little effect on these parameters, and the DOE test procedure is insensitive to increased insulation due to the short time frame of the test where the insulation never reaches thermal equilibrium. Actually, increased or improved insulation can lead to decreased efficiency because it will act as a thermal heat sink during the early stages of cooking.
Economics. The design option of increasing the insulation thickness from 2 inches to 4 inches will not result in an increase in efficiency for gas ovens. Therefore, the option is not economically justified under any cost consideration (See Table 3-4). 3-8 In addition, ADM(22) [pg. 9-11] reported that:



### . . . [ilncreased insulation thickness was not considered a viable option, as it requires a reduction in cavity size and a corresponding reduction in consumer utility. Adding insulation to an oven will not directly affect food quality except that it may require a reduced oven capacity. Most of the ranges produced today are made to fit in a 3D-inch space and the only way to add insulation would be to decrease the oven cavity size. This would result in a loss of utility to the consumer. A large oven size is one ofthe most significant advertised marketing features for ovens and is valued by the consumer.


### Analytical Modeling. Analytical modeling indicated that there would be ll.Q increase in energy efficiency when comparing 3- or 4-inchinsulation with the 2-inch insulation in the baseline gas oven.


### Experimental Tests. Experimental data indicated that a slight efficiency increase could be achieved by adding insulation in the broiler compartment ofa conventional gas oven where typically there is no insulation.(8) This option does not exist for a self-cleaning oven. The GRI report provides additional details about these tests. As was mentioned previously, thicker insulation is added to ovens for surface temperature considerations, not for heat retention or faster cooking cycles. Insulation has little effect on these parameters, and the DOE test procedure is insensitive to increased insulation due to the short time frame of the test where the insulation never reaches thermal equilibrium. Actually, increased or improved insulation can lead to decreased efficiency because 

### it will act as a thermal heat sink during the early stages ofcooking.



### Economics. The design option ofincreasing the insulation thickness from 2 inches to 4 inches will not result in an increase in efficiency for gas ovens. Therefore, the option is not economicallyjustified under any cost consideration (See Table 3-4).

### 3-9

Table 3-4. Economic Analysis of Design Option: Added Insulation

Design Option Net Energy Saved, kBtu/yr Annualized Net Savings, $ Standard Oven 0 -1.77 Self-Clean Oven 0 -1.77

4, Reduced Thermal Mass
Design Option. This design option is intended to reduce the energy absorbed by oven components to increase the energy efficiency. According to DOE, the added cost to consumers would be $4.82 and $7.47 for standard and self-cleaning ovens, respectively. Not considered in these cost estimates was the increased maintenance cost from failure of the thinner and weaker material.
Experimental Tests. Experimental tests found only a 0.58 percent (or 0.04 percentage point) increase in energy efficiency for a self-cleaning range with an equivalent of 5.52 pounds of wall material removed (compared with walls of approximately 25 pounds in a standard gas oven)8 {pg. 7-33]. The reduction in thermal mass was obtained by removing one rack and the waist-high broiler from the oven. This, of course, would not be possible in a production range and the mass would have to be reduced by use of a lighter metal gauge or a lighter material for the oven racks. The thermal mass effects would be comparable, however. The use of porcelain coatings on the oven walls is standard practice for oven construction. The use of thinner walls would not allow the use of this coating. The porcelain would crack and craze or even flake off if thinner walls were used, and this would be unacceptable to the consumer. 3-9 Table 3-4. Economic Analysis ofDesign Option: Added Insulation

Net Energy Saved, Annualized Net Savings, Design Option kBtu/yr 

### $ 

# I

Standard Oven 

# I 0 

# I -1.77 

# I : Self-Clean Oven 0 -1.77

4. Reduced Thermal Mass
Design Option. This design option is intended to reduce the energy absorbed by oven components to increase the energy efficiency. According to DOE, the added cost to

consumers would be $4.82 and $7.47 for standard and self-cleaning ovens, respectively. Not considered in these cost estimates was the increased maintenance cost from failure of the thinner and weaker material.
Experimental Tests. Experimental tests found only a 0.58 percent (or 0.04 percentage point) increase in energy efficiency for a self-cleaning range with an equivalent of 5.52 pounds ofwall material removed (compared with walls of approximately 25 pounds in a standard gas oven)(8) [pg. 7-33]. The reduction in thermal mass was obtained by removing

one rack and the waist-high broiler from the oven. This, ofcourse, would not be possible in

a production range and the mass would have to be reduced by use ofa lighter metal gauge or
a lighter material for the oven racks. The thermal mass effects would be comparable, however. The use ofporcelain coatings on the oven walls is standard practice for oven construction. The use ofthinner walls would not allow the use ofthis coating. The porcelain would crack and craze or even flake off ifthinner walls were used, and this would be unacceptable to the consumer.

### 3-10

Other Sources. The TSD4 references AHAM,' and ORTECH14 for the efficiency improvement numbers. AHAM claims less than 0.1 percent increase in efficiency. ADM [pgs. 9-18 and 9-19] suggested a 0.5 percentage point increase but said that the option is "not feasible due to extensive retooling requirement" for both standard and self-clean gas ovens. ORTECH references the 1977 Science Applications, Inc. ,17) report for the 8 percent improvement for electric standard and self-cleaning ovens. However, SAl reports only a 3.4 percent improvement for gas standard ovens and says this option is "not applicable" to gas self-cleaning ovens'7 [pg. 11].
Consumer Utility. If the reduction in thermal mass is to be accomplished with a smaller oven cavity, the utility of the oven would be decreased. Consumers prefer larger oven cavities as documented by oven ratings in Consumer Reports'24 and advertising material related to gas ranges (See Appendix C, Exhibit 3).
Safety Concerns. The GRI analysis and subsequent manufacturer consensus indicate that the magnitude of thermal mass reduction assumed by DOE is not possible without serious degradation in range strength and durability, particularly for shipping. The mass of ranges has been reduced to a practical limit, evidenced by the need for safety brackets to prevent the range from tipping from someone leaning on it or from a heavy load on the oven door. Reduction of thermal mass raises questions of product utility, safety, and stability and is not practical for the typical consumer range.
Economic Analysis. This option is not technically feasible without reduction of the oven cavity size. Since this would remove a consumer-desired feature and would not allow preparation of large, multi-course family meals, it should not be mandated. Life-cycle costs using the DOE cost to consumer and an efficiency improvement of 0.5 percent show that this option is not economically justified (see Appendix A). 3-10 Other Sources. The TSD(4) references AHAM,(2\) ADM,(22) and ORTECH(l4) for the efficiency improvement numbers. AHAM claims less than 0.1 percent increase in efficiency. ADM [pgs. 9-18 and 9-19] suggested a 0.5 percentage point increase but said that the option is "not feasible due to extensive retooling requirement" for both standard and self-clean gas
---
ovens. ORTECH references the 1977 Science Applications, Inc.,(17) report for the 8 percent improvement for electric standard and self-cleaning ovens. However, SAl reports only a 3.4 percent improvement for gas standard ovens and says this option is "not applicable" to gas self-cleaning ovens(17) [pg. 11].

Consumer Utility. Ifthe reduction in thermal mass is to be accomplished with a smaller oven cavity, the utility ofthe oven would be decreased. Consumers prefer larger

oven cavities as documented by oven ratings in Consumer Reports(24) and advertising material related to gas ranges (See Appendix C, Exhibit 3).
Safety Concerns. The GRI analysis and subsequent manufacturer consensus indicate that the magnitude ofthermal mass reduction assumed by DOE is not possible without serious degradation in range strength and durability, particularly for shipping. The mass of ranges has been reduced to a practical limit, evidenced by the need for safety brackets to prevent the range from tipping from someone leaning on it or from a heavy load on the oven door. Reduction ofthermal mass raises questions ofproduct utility, safety, and stability and is not practical for the typical consumer range.

Economic Analysis. This option is not technically feasible without reduction of the

oven cavity size. Since this would remove a consumer-desired feature and would not allow preparation oflarge, multi-course family meals, it should not be mandated. Life-cycle costs using the DOE cost to consumer and an efficiency improvement of0.5 percent show that this option is not economicallyjustified (see Appendix A).

### 3-11

5. Improved Insulation
Design Option. Improving the density of insulation in standard ovens to the level in self-clean ovens (1.09 ibm/ft3 to 1.91 ibm/ft3) was proposed as an option to increase the - efficiency of ovens.
Experimental Tests. Experimental tests were performed on both standard and selfcleaning gas ovens with improved insulation (lower thermal conductivity). Both resulted in decreased energy efficiency. The standard oven had an energy efficiency decrease of 0.05 percentage points. The self-cleaning oven had a decrease of 0. 15 percentage points.8 Tests performed on standard ovens with higher insulation densities showed an efficiency decrease, also. As mentioned in the section discussing the effects of added insulation, with the current, relatively short duration DOE test procedure, the improved (higher density) insulation acts as additional thermal mass. The benefits of improved insulation would only be seen after long periods of cooking, which are not representative of typical consumer use. Higher levels of insulation are used on self-cleaning ovens to maintain low surface temperatures (code compliance), safety, and protect control components and kitchen cabinets. Adding insulation around the broiler compartment of a standard oven did increase the efficiency; however, this was not cost-effective on a life-cycle cost basis.
Economics. Since this option reduces energy efficiency, it would result in added cost to the consumer and is not life-cycle cost effective. 3-11 

### S. 

### Improved Insulation
Design Option. Improving the density ofinsulation in standard ovens to the level in self-clean ovens (1.09 Ibm/ft3 to 1.91 Ibm/ft3) was proposed as an option to increase the efficiency ofovens.


### Experimental Tests. Experimental tests were performed on both standard and selfcleaning gas ovens with improved insulation (lower thermal conductivity). Both resulted in decreased energy efficiency. The standard oven had an energy efficiency decrease of 0.05 percentage points. The self-cleaning oven had a decrease of 0.15 percentage points.(8) Tests performed on standard ovens with higher insulation densities showed an efficiency decrease, also. As mentioned in the section discussing the effects ofadded insulation, with the current, relatively short duration DOE test procedure, the improved (higher density) insulation acts as additional thermal mass. The benefits ofimproved insulation would only be seen after long periods ofcooking, which are not representative of typical consumer use. Higher levels of insulation are used on self-cleaning ovens to maintain low surface temperatures (code compliance), safety, and protect control components and kitchen cabinets. Adding insulation around the broiler compartment ofa standard oven did increase the efficiency; however, this

was not cost-effective on a life-cycle cost basis.



### Economics. Since this option reduces energy efficiency, it would result in added cost to the consumer and is not life-cycle cost effective.3-12 3-12

### 4. OPTIONS REJECTED BY THE DOE

This chapter discusses the design options that DOE rejected in its NOPR. (3) Analysis - supports the rejection of each of these options because none is economically justified. The options covered in this chapter are: 1. Forced Convection (Self-Cleaning Oven) 2. Oven Separator (Standard and Self-Cleaning Oven) 3. Reduced Conduction Losses (Standard and Self-Cleaning Oven) 4. Sealed Burners (Cooktops) 5. Reflective Surfaces (Cooktops) 6. Thermostatic Burners (Cooktops). Table 4-1 summarizes the results for the design options rejected by DOE.
1. Forced Convection (Self-Clean Oven)
Design Option. Forced convection for a self-cleaning oven was rejected by DOE but determined to be cost-effective for standard ovens. Life-cycle economic analysis rejects forced convection for both standard and self-cleaning ovens because of the high cost of implementing this option for a gas oven. If a gas convection oven does become available, consumers might be willing to pay an increased price for the features offered by a convection oven, but it is unlikely that a decision to purchase would be made using energy savings as a basis. Detailed discussion of this option for standard ovens is presented in Chapter 2.
2. Oven Separator
Design Option. For small oven loads, an oven separator would effectively reduce the
oven cavity size because less energy would be required to heat a smaller cavity. An oven separator would need to be designed for easy and safe installation and removal by the 4. OPTIONS REJECTED BY THE DOE

This chapter discusses the design options that DOE rejected in its NOPR. (3) 

### Analysis supports the rejection ofeach ofthese options because none is economicallyjustified. The options covered in 

### this chapter are: 1. Forced Convection (Self-Cleaning Oven) 2. Oven Separator (Standard and Self-Cleaning Oven) 3. Reduced Conduction Losses (Standard and Self-Cleaning Oven) 4. Sealed Burners (Cooktops) 5. Reflective Surfaces (Cooktops) 6. Thermostatic Burners (Cooktops).
Table 4-1 summarizes the results for the design options rejected by DOE.

1. 

### Forced Convection (Self-Clean Oven)
Design Option. Forced convection for a self-cleaning oven was rejected by DOE but determined to be cost-effective for standard ovens. Life-cycle economic analysis rejects forced convection for both standard and self-cleaning ovens because of the high cost of implementing this option for a gas oven. If

### a gas convection oven does become available,

consumers might be willing to pay an increased price for the features offered by a convection
oven, but it is unlikely that a decision to purchase would be made using energy savings as a basis. Detailed discussion ofthis option for standard ovens is presented in Chapter 2.

2. Oven Separator
Design Option. For small oven loads, an oven separator would effectively reduce the

oven cavity size because less energy would be required to heat a smaller cavity. An oven separator would need to be designed for easy and safe installation and removal by the4-2



### Table 4-1. Summary of Impacts of Rejected DOE Design Options on Gas Ranges

and Ovens

Potential Issues

., 0 

# S DOE Design Option Forced convection, self-clean oven 4. •5 a N (Loss) b b Oven separator, ovens c 4. 39.8 N (Loss) 

### • • Reduced conduction losses, ovens C 4. 20.3 N (Loss) Sealed burners, cooktops 0 0 N (Loss) Reflective surfaces, cooktops 4. 0.07 N (Loss) Thermostatic burners, cooktops 0

- N (Loss) U
a. Estimate based on manufacturers testing electric forced convection ovens b. If required for all cooking c. Both standard and self-cleaning 4-2



### Table 4-1. 

### Summary ofbnpacts ofRejected DOE Design Options on Gas Ranges and Ovens

DOE Design Option Forced convection, .1.

self-clean oven 5.5 8 N (Loss) 

# • • 

# .b .b

Oven separator, .1.

ovens C 39.8 N (Loss) 

# • • • • • • Reduced conduction

losses, ovens C .1. 20.3 N (Loss) Sealed burners,

cooktops 

### a a N (Loss) Reflective surfaces, .1.

cooktops 0.07 N (Loss) 

# • Thermostatic

burners, cooktops 

### a N (Loss) 

# • •

8. Estimate based on manufacturers testing electric forced convection ovens b. If required for all cooking c. Both standard and self-cleaning

### 4-3

consumer. This option was proposed for both standard and self-cleaning ovens. The increased cost to consumers was estimated by DOE to be $25.38 for a standard oven and $32.95 for a self-cleaning oven. GRE-estimated costs using input from manufacturers averaged $124.59.(8) This estimate is considerably higher than the DOE estimate since, in a gas oven, it is technically difficult to implement this design option. Changes must be made in the thermostat location, reduced burner input, oven vent construction, and required controls interlocks.
Experimental Tests. Experimental tests did show that the rated energy efficiency of the oven would increase when an oven separator is used.8 If it is not used, obviously there is no reduction in energy consumption. The efficiency increased by about 39.8 percent (or 2.5 percentage points) when a separator was used. Further details of the experimental test can be found in Reference 8. However, the actual impact on energy consumption is difficult to estimate due to the expected discretionary use by the consumer of this option. Toaster ovens and microwaves are already available and are used for smaller cooking loads. These options are much more attractive than the use of a partition that must be stored when not in use.
Economics. For the economic analysis, the oven separator was assumed to be used for only 50 percent of cooking. Even using the DOE cost assumptions, this option would not be life-cycle cost justified. Our analysis agrees with the DOE result that this design option should not be adopted.
Cooking Concerns. This option reduces consumer utility of the oven because it requires more consumer interaction and knowledge. An oven separator may also create difficulties with temperature control that would affect cooking quality. This option would make meeting standards difficult because of safety concerns and performance issues. 4-3

consumer. This option was proposed for both standard and self-cleaning ovens. The increased cost to consumers was estimated by DOE to be $25.38 for a standard oven and $32.95 for a self-cleaning oven. GRI-estimated costs using input from manufacturers averaged $124.59.(8) This estimate is considerably higher than the DOE estimate since, in a gas oven, it is technically difficult to implement this design option. Changes must be made in the thermostat location, reduced burner input, oven vent construction, and required controls interlocks.
Experimental Tests. Experimental tests did show that the rated energy efficiency of the oven would increase when an oven separator is used. (8) Ifit is not used, obviously there is no reduction in energy consumption. The efficiency increased by about 39.8 percent (or 2.5 percentage points) when a separator was used. Further details ofthe experimental test

can be found in Reference 8. However, the actual impact on energy consumption is difficult to estimate due to the expected discretionary use by the consumer of this option. Toaster ovens and microwaves

are already available and are used for smaller cooking loads. These options are much more attractive than the use of a partition that must be stored when not in use.

Economics. For the economic analysis, the oven separator was assumed to be used for only 50 percent ofcooking. Even using the DOE cost assumptions, this option would not be life-cycle costjustified. Our analysis agrees with the DOE result that this design option should not be adopted.
Cooking Concerns. This option reduces consumer utility of the oven because it requires more consumer interaction and knowledge. An oven separator may also create difficulties with temperature control that would affect cooking qUality. This option would make meeting standards difficult because of safety concerns and performance issues.4-4



### Safety Concerns. Safety is a concern because of the increased likelihood for burns from removIng the bulky and potentially hot separator from the oven. System interlocks may be required. Due to the high added cost, consumer utility concerns, and safety concerns, this option is not justified.

3. Reduced Conduction Losses
Design Option. This option seeks to reduce conduction paths in the oven to reduce heat losses. DOE suggested that this could be accomplished by improving the oven door by adding an "additional thermal break and a modified inner panel. "4)
Experimental Tests. This option was evaluated by comparing the efficiency of a standard gas oven with a self-cleaning oven that had design features that reduce conduction loss. Testing the option in this manner did not isolate the effect of reduced conduction losses because the higher efficiency of self-cleaning ovens is partially due to greater insulation in and around the oven cavity and the oven door, and to differences in the oven door window glass. Building a standard oven like a self-cleaning oven does increase its efficiency and decrease its gas consumption. See Reference 8, page 7-24, for a full discussion of this design option.
Economics. While this option did demonstrate higher efficiencies, the added cost of $93.82 far outweighed the energy savings, maldng the option not economically justified. Self-cleaning ovens already incorporate design features that reduce conduction losses andachieve greater efficiency. The consumer is willing to pay the costs associated with the selfcleaning feature that automatically provides the added advantage of increased efficiency. Judged only as an energy-saving design option, there is no life-cycle cost justification8 for this design option. 4-4



### . Safety Concerns. Safety is a concern because ofthe increased likelihood for bums from removing the bulky and potentially hot separator from the oven. System interlocks may be required. Due to the high added cost, consumer utility concerns, and safety concerns, this option

-- is notjustified.



### 3. Reduced Conduction Losses
Design Option. This option seeks to reduce conduction paths in the oven to reduce heat losses. DOE suggested that this could be accomplished by improving the oven door by adding an "additional thermal break and a modified inner panel.

.. (4)


### Experimental Tests. This option was evaluated by comparing the efficiency of a standard gas oven with a self-cleaning oven that had design features that reduce conduction loss. Testing the option in this manner did not isolate the effect ofreduced conduction losses because the higher efficiency of self-cleaning ovens is partially due to greater insulation in and around the oven cavity and the oven door, and to differences in the oven door window glass. Building a standard oven like a self-cleaning oven does increase its efficiency and decrease its gas consumption. See Reference 8, page 7-24, for a full discussion of this design option.



### Economics. While this option did demonstrate higher efficiencies, the added cost of 

### $93.82 far outweighed the energy savings, making the option not economicallyjustified. Self-cleaning ovens already incorporate design features that reduce conduction losses and achieve greater efficiency. The consumer is willing to pay the costs associated with the selfcleaning feature that automatically-provides the added advantage of increased efficiency. Judged only as an energy-saving design option, there is no life-cycle costjustification(8) for this design option.

. \4-5



### 4, Sealed Burners
Design Option. Sealed burners offer the feature of the cooktop surface extending around the burners, which makes cleaning much easier. Conventional burners, by contrast, have an open area around the burner. Most high-end ranges already incorporate sealed burners as standard equipment. Consumers have been adopting this design option at a rapid rate, indicating their willingness to pay the added cost for the convenience of easier cleaning.
Experimental Tests. Experimental data comparing efficiencies of conventional burners and sealed burners obtained during the GRI experimental study8 show essentially no changes in efficiency for sealed burners. Additionally, large efficiency variations were found among both conventional and sealed burners, even among burners with the same input rating on the same cooktop. These variations were greater than any measured efficiency differences.

Other Sources. The International Gas Research Conference (IGRC) study cited in the TSD4 used boiling water tests, which are not comparable to the DOE test procedure. In addition, the IGRC report was misquoted in the TSD on page 1-12 as stating "that the reduction in secondary air results in more primary aeration to the sealed burner. "(4) The IGRC report says "it has been necessary to increase the primary aeration" because of the reduced secondary air associated with the sealed burner.' These two statements are not technically the same. Reduction in secondary air does not "result" in more primary aeration, but requires design changes to provide increased primary air for proper combustion. This has implications of additional cost, complexity, and maintenance.

Economics. In addition to showing no statistically valid efficiency increase, the added cost to consumers of $43.82, determined by DOE,4 makes this design option not justified by life-cycle cost analysis. However, more and more consumers are willing to pay the added cost for sealed burners because of the added utility of easier cleaning, not because of any potential energy savings. 4-5 

### 4. Sealed Burners
Design Option. Sealed burners offer the feature ofthe cooktop surface extending around the burners, which makes cleaning much easier. Conventional burners, by contrast, have an open area around the burner. Most high-end ranges already incorporate sealed burners as standard equipment. Consumers have been adopting this design option at a rapid rate, indicating their willingness to pay the added cost for the convenience ofeasier cleaning.

Experimental Tests. Experimental data comparing efficiencies of conventional burners and sealed burners obtained during the GRI experimental study(8) show essentially no changes in efficiency for sealed burners. Additionally, large efficiency variations were found among both conventional and sealed burners, even among burners with the same input rating

on the same cooktop. These variations were greater than any measured efficiency differences.

Other Sources. The International Gas Research Conference (IGRC) study(25) cited in the TSD(4) used boiling**w~ter** tests, which are not comparable to the DOE test procedure. In addition, the IGRC report was misquoted in the TSD on page 1-12 as stating "that the reduction in secondary air results in more primary aeration to the sealed burner.,,(4) The IGRC report says "it has been necessary to increase the primary aeration" because ofthe reduced secondary air associated with the sealed burner.(21) These two statements are not technically the same. Reduction in secondary air does not "result" in more primary aeration, but requires design changes to provide increased primary air for proper combustion. This has implications ofadditional cost, complexity, and maintenance.

Economics. In addition to showing no statistically valid efficiency increase, the added
cost to consumers of

### $43.82, determined by DOE,(4) makes this design option notjustified by life-cycle cost analysis. However, more and more consumers are willing to pay the added
cost for sealed burners because of the added utility ofeasier cleaning, not because ofany potential energy savings.

### 4-6

5. Reflective Surfaces (Cooktos)
Design Option. Adding highly polished or chrome pans beneath the burner was rejected as a cooktop design option by DOE due to a concern for the longevity of the surfaces. (4


### Experimental Tests. For gas cooktops, experimental data confirm that the efficiency increase resulting from adding reflective surfaces is very small, about only 0.1 percent or 0.04 percentage points. See Reference 8, page 7-9, for a complete discussion of this option. This design option was not life-cycle cost justified. Testing supports DOE's concern about the longevity of reflective surfaces.

6. Thermostatic Burners
Design Option. Thermostatically controlled burners use a sensing element to monitor and control the temperature of the cooking pot. The system, as implemented in the past, had poor reaction time and was relatively expensive. This option was available in the l950s and 1960s but manufacturers discontinued the feature because of numerous maintenance problems, inaccurate results, and consumer complaints. Analysis8 confirms the DOE conclusion that the use of thermostatically controlled burners would not result in an efficiency increase and should not be considered as a proposed design option for improved energy efficiency.4-6 

### 5. Reflective Surfaces (Cooktopsl
Design Option. Adding highly polished or chrome pans beneath the burner was rejected as a cooktop design option by DOE due to a concern for the longevity ofthe surfaces. (4)


### Experimental Tests. For gas cooktops, experimental data confirm that the efficiency increase resulting from adding reflective surfaces is very small, about only 0.1 percent or 0.04 percentage points. See Reference 8, page 7-9, for a complete discussion of this option. This design option was not life-cycle costjustified. Testing supports DOE's concern about the longevity ofreflective surfaces.



### 6. Thennostatic Burners
Design Option. Thermostatically controlled burners use a sensing element to monitor and control the temperature ofthe cooking pot. The system, as implemented in the past, had poor reaction time and was relatively expensive. This option was available in the 1950s and 1960s but manufacturers discontinued the feature because of numerous maintenance problems, inaccurate results, and consumer complaints. Analysis(8) confirms the DOE conclusion that the use of thermostatically controlled burners would not result in an efficiency increase and should not be considered as a proposed design option for improved energy efficiency.5• METHODOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS



### An economic analysis was conducted for each of the design options evaluated, using the consumer costs and savings expected to occur over the life of the range. This analysis is called a life-cycle analysis. The results of the life-cycle cost analysis are summarized below. Detailed results are presented in Appendix A.
Assumptions
Energy costs are based on the DOE/EIA residential projections for the Reference Case published in DOE's Annual Energy Outlook, J994) and Average Regional End-Use Energy Price Projections to the Year 2030(1D Prices were converted to 1990 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator (Deflator 1990, 113.3; 1992, 12.1). Dollars were converted to 1990 values to make direct comparison with the DOE analysis4 easier. The DOE analysis multiplies average national gas prices by 1.2, presumably to reflect an assumption that range gas prices should reflect the first, and "highest priced," block of gas. However, gas utilities do not distinguish between residential gas destined to ranges versus other gas equipment. There are no "time of day" or appliance-specific rates applied to the fuel. Given the non-specific nature of gas delivery, the only justifiable pricing rationale is to assume average-priced fuel to each of the residential appliances. There is no basis to assume consumers place a higher value on fuel delivered for particular applications. For these reasons, this study does not use the 1.2 factor and it 'is recommended that DOE also not use this multiplier. Range energy use is based on the metered appliance study27 for a range with electric ignition, the DOE Technical Support Document,4 and the DOE procedures given in the Code of Federal Regulations.6 Gas use for ovens was estimated to be 1.092 million Btu and for cooktops, 1.148 million Btu. Details on the derivation, how the useful gas amountswere estimated, and how efficiencies are calculated are given Appendix D. In the calculations, the energy used by the oven pilot(s) and electric oven igniter(s) during the test is 5. METHODOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

An economic analysis was conducted for each ofthe design options evaluated, using the consumer costs and savings expected to occur over the life ofthe range. This analysis is called a life-cycle analysis. The results ofthe life-cycle cost analysis are summarized below. Detailed results are presented in Appendix A.
Assumptions

Energy costs are based on the DOE/EIA residential projections for the Reference Case published in DOE'sAnnual Energy Outlook, 1994<10) and Average Regional End-Use Energy Price Projections to the Year 2030.(11) Prices were converted to 1990 dollars using the GOP Implicit Price Deflator (Deflator 1990, 113.3; 1992, 12.1). Dollars were converted to 1990 values to make direct comparison with the DOE analysis(4) easier. The DOE analysis multiplies average national gas prices by 1.2, presumably to reflect

an assumption that range gas prices should reflect the first, and "highest priced," block of gas. However, gas utilities do not distinguish between residential gas destined to ranges
versus other gas equipment. There are no "time ofday" or appliance-specific rates applied to the fuel. Given the non-specific nature ofgas delivery, the onlyjustifiable pricing rationale is to assume average-priced fuel to each ofthe residential appliances. There is no basis to assume consumers place a higher value on fuel delivered for particular applications. For these reasons, this study does not use the 1.2 factor and itis recommended that DOE also not use this multiplier. Range energy use is based on the metered appliance study(27) for a range with electric ignition, the DOE Technical Support Document,(4) and the DOE procedures given in the Code of Federal Regulations.(26) Gas use for ovens was estimated to be 1.092 million Btu and for cooktops, 1.148 million Btu. Details on the derivation, how the useful gas amounts
were estimated, and how efficiencies are calculated are given Appendix D. In the calculations, the energy used by the oven pilot(s) and electric oven igniter(s) during the test is5-2



### included in the analyzed data. Energy for a standing pilot or for self-cleaning during noncooking periods and the clock and/or fan for self-cleaning was included in calculating the annual usage. Energy for the clock is assigned to the oven, as specified in the DOE test method.

Consumer Cost
The incremental cost to the consumer for a range unit with a specific design option wasbased on estimates made by manufacturers and industry consultants (Reference 8, Appendix E) or DOE estimates were used.4 Costs were converted to constant 1990 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator (1990, 113.3; 1992, 121. 1; 1994 First Quarter, 125.7). Incremental cost is defined as the difference in consumer price between a range unit with a specific DOE design option and the baseline unit. Detailed inputs and analyses are provided in the tables in Appendix A for each of the cases examined within a given category of design options. The retail costs were based on a factory floor manufacturing cost and a markup factor of 2.81, based on estimates prepared by an industry consultant in conjunction with a survey by AHAM.8 Maintenance costs for the baseline and modified units have been included only for intermittent ignition devices (lID) (based on DOE's national cost estimate for a cooktop lID, which was used for both cooktop and oven lIDs) and for forced convection to cover fan maintenance. The Technical Support Document4 cautions that the value should be lower for ovens, but using this cost is probably better than ignoring the cost. (The national value, which was estimated from San Francisco survey results and the Means regional cost factors, may be too low since the Means factors apply to commercial construction, which is highly unionized in the Bay Area.) Costs to the consumer as a result of any required certification program are not included. Preliminary estimates for the costs associated with a certification program are given in Reference 8, Appendix G, but are not included in the consumer cost. 5-2 included in the analyzed data. Energy for a standing pilot or for self-cleaning during noncooking periods and the clock and/or fan for self-cleaning was included in calculating the annual usage. Energy for the clock is assigned to the oven, as specified in the DOE test method.

Consumer Cost

The incremental cost to the consumer for a range unit with a specific design option was based on estimates made by manufacturers and industry consultants (Reference 8, Appendix E) or DOE estimates were used.(4) Costs were converted to constant 1990 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator (1990, 113.3; 1992, 121.1; 1994 First Quarter, 125.7). Incremental cost is defined as the difference in consumer price between a range unit with a specific DOE design option and the baseline unit. Detailed inputs and analyses are provided in the tables in Appendix A for each ofthe cases examined within a given category ofdesign options. The retail costs were based on a factory floor manufacturing cost and a markup factor of2.81, based on estimates prepared by an industry consultant in conjunction with a survey by AHAM.(8) Maintenance costs for the baseline and modified units have been included only for intermittent ignition devices (110) (based on DOE's national cost estimate for a cooktop 110, which was used for both cooktop and oven lIDs) and for forced convection to cover fan maintenance. The Technical Support Document<4) cautions that the value should be lower for
ovens, but using this cost is probably better than ignoring the cost. (The national value, which was estimated from San Francisco survey results and the Means regional cost factors, may be too low since the Means factors apply to commercial construction, which is highly unionized in the Bay Area.) Costs to the consumer as a result of any required certification program are not included. Preliminary estimates for the costs associated with a certification program are given in Reference 

### 8, Appendix G, but are not included in the consumer cost.

### 5-3 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
The discounted cash flow (DCF) technique is a commonly used method for making economic comparisons between alternative ways of accomplishing a given long-term task or function. It is particularly useful when the different proposals being evaluated have different cash flow patterns, i.e., the costs and savings associated with each proposal differ in both magnitude and time of occurrence. Valid comparisons may be made between economically diverse proposals because the DCF technique uses discount factors to account for the "time value of money." The concept of the time value of money recognizes that a dollar spent or received today can be compared to a dollar spent or received at a point in the future only when provision is made to account for the effect of compounded interest. The input information needed for an economic comparison by DCF analysis is (1) the magnitude of and time of occurrence of the costs and benefits related to each proposal, and (2) the appropriate discount or interest rate.
Approach and Financial Assumptions
The life-cycle cost model employed for the analysis is similar to the approach that Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) used in its analysis for DOE.9 Specific assumptions used in the study are as follows: • Life of the range unit was assumed to be 19 years, DOE data. (An AHAM survey gives 18 years.) • All costs are in constant 1990 dollars to make comparison with the DOE analysis4 easier. • Where data from other years were used, they were transformed to 1990 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator. • The discount rates are real discount rates, i.e., they are market rates adjusted for inflation. Real rates of 2, 6, and 15 percent were used as stipulated by DOE. A 7 percent rate was also used because it was previously used by DOE. • All cash flows are assumed to occur at year end. 5-3 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

The discounted cash flow (DCF) technique is a commonly used method for making economic comparisons between alternative ways of accomplishing a given long-term task or function. Itis particularly useful when the different proposals being evaluated have different cash flow patterns, i.e., the costs and savings associated with each proposal differ in both magnitude and time ofoccurrence. Valid comparisons may be made between economically diverse proposals because the DCF technique uses discount factors to account for the "time value ofmoney." The concept ofthe time value of money recognizes that a dollar spent or received today can be compared to a dollar spent or received at a point in the future only when provision is made to account for the effect ofcompounded interest. The input information needed for an economic comparison by DCF analysis is (1) the magnitude of and time ofoccurrence of the costs and benefits related to each proposal, and (2) the appropriate discount or interest rate.
Approach and Financial Assumptions

The life-cycle cost model employed for the analysis is similar to the approach that Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) used in its analysis for DOE.(9) Specific assumptions used in the study are as follows:

• Life ofthe range unit was assumed to be 19 years, DOE data. (An AHAM

survey gives 18 years.)

• All costs are in constant 1990 dollars to make comparison with the DOE

analysis(4) easier.

• Where data from other years were used, they were transformed to 1990 dollars

using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator

.

.. The discount rates are real discount rates, i.e., they are market rates adjusted for

inflation. Real rates of2, 6, and 15 percent were used as stipulated by DOE. A 7 percent rate was also used because it was previously used by DOE

.

.. All cash flows are assumed to occur at year end.

### 5-4

No salvage value is assumed. e All fuel energy values are higher heating values. Future residential fuel costs are from the DOE Energy Information Administration's - Annual Energy Outlook, 1994(10) (Reference Case) and, beyond 2010, growth rates from Average Regional End-Use Energy Price Projections to the Year 20011) The natural gas fuel cost projections and electricity cost projections used in the economic analyses are shown in Figure 5-1.



## RESIDENTIAL PRICES OF NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY NATIONAL REFERENCE CASE. DOE 1994 PRO.ECTION 30

0 27.36

20

10 8.59

0 1998 2001 2006 2011 2016


### Figure 5-1. Fuel cost projections in the economic analyses based on DOE's Annual Energy

Outlook, 1994, converted to 1990 dollars 5-4

• No salvage value is assumed.

• All fuel energy values are higher heating values.

Future residential fuel costs are from the DOE Energy Information Administration's 

### AnnualEnergy Outlook, 1994(10) (Reference Case) and, beyond 2010, growth rates from 

### Average Regional End-Use Energy Price Projections to the Year 2030.01) The natural gas fuel cost projections and electricity cost projections used in the economic analyses are shown in Figure 

### 5-1.**O~~------~--------~-------L--------~** 2011 2018


### Figure 5-1. Fuel cost projections 

### in the economic analyses based on DOE'sAnnual

### Energy Outlook, 1994, converted to 1990 dollars

### 5-5 Output of Analysis
The life-cycle approach converts each year's cash flow to a present value by dividing by the quantity (1 + market rate) raised to the power of the difference year number. This is similar to calculating a future value by using the compound interest formula. The sum of these values including the Year 0 investment is the net present value. The following figures of merit were calculated:

Annualized Net Savings. This is the annual cost or savings, including the impact of amortizing the initial investment calculated so as to be the same each year in constant dollar terms. The net present value of all cash flows, including those in Year 0 (initial costs), were converted to an annualized equal amount using the ordinary annuity formula. • Net Present Value of Savings/Initial Cost Ratio. This is a form of benefit/cost ratio that is consistent with the DCF analysis considered in this study. The net present value of future cash flows was divided by the initial investment. Internal Rate of Return. This is the return on investment, assuming that all flows are invested at the internal rate. The discount rate that makes the net present value of all savings equal to the net present value of investments was calculated. Simple Payback. Simple Years to Payback or "Simple Payback" was included in this analysis because it is commonly used in rough economic analysis. Note that it does not incorporate the time value of money and does not reflect expected changes in the value of energy savings beyond the payback year resulting from forecasted energy price increases. • Net Energy Saved. Gas and electricity saved is reported in kBtu per year. Electric energy was calculated as 3,412 Btu/kWh. • Annualized Value of Gas Savings. The annual savings in expenditures for natural gas were converted to levelized annual amounts using the 6 percent discount factor. Sensitivities were determined for the following factors: • Discount rate, 2, 7, and 15 percent (6 percent is the base percent) 5-5 Output ofAnalysis

The life-cycle approach converts each year's cash flow to a present value by dividing by the quantity (l 

### + market rate) raised to the power ofthe difference year number. This is similar to calculating a future value by using the compound interest formula. The sum of these values including the Year 0 investment is the net present value. The following figures ofmerit were calculated:

• Annualized 

### Net Savings. This is the annual cost or savings,

including the impact of amortizing the initial investment calculated so as to be the same each year in constant dollar terms. The net present value of all cash flows, including those in Year 0 (initial costs), were converted to an annualized equal amount using the ordinary annuity formula.

• Net Present Value ofSavingslIoitial Cost Ratio. This is a form of

benefit/cost ratio that is consistent with the DCF analysis considered in this study. The net present value offuture cash flows was divided by the initial investment.

• Internal Rate ofReturn. This is the return on investment, assuming

that all flows are invested at the internal rate. The discount rate that makes the net present value ofall savings equal to the net present value ofinvestments was calculated.

• SimplePayback. Simple Years to Payback or "Simple Payback"

was included in this analysis because it is commonly used in rough economic analysis. Note that it does not incorporate the time value ofmoney and does not reflect expected changes in the value of energy savings beyond the payback year resulting from forecasted energy price increases.

• Net Energy Saved. Gas and electricity saved is reported in kBtu per

year. Electric energy was calculated as 3,412 Btu/kWh.

• Annualized 

### Value ofGas Savings. The annual savings in

expenditures for natural gas were converted to 

### levelized annual amounts using the 6 percent discount factor.
Sensitivities were determined for the following factors:

• Discount rate, 2, 7, and 15 percent (6 percent is the base percent)

### 5-6

• Annual gas energy use, from 80 to 210 percent of standard value • First cost, 75 to 150 percent of standard value Appliance life, plus and minus 2 years Gas cost, 80 and 120 percent of standard value. Appendix D discusses how the metered appliance study gas usage results have been correlated with the DOE procedure's useful consumption values to be used in the calculation.Although the metered gas usage values are lower than those inferred from the DOE procedure, sensitivity values are included in the tables in Appendix A using the DOE values.
Gas Use Sensitivity Values • The 80 and 125 percent values were chosen to reflect a spread that might be expected in individual usage where the metered gas study values, as derived in Appendix D, were the averages. • The higher values were chosen to reflect the values used in DOE's current and proposed regulations, which are shown in the Table 5.1 - the 150 percent value corresponds roughly to the proposed (NOPR) cooktop standard's useful energy consumption - the 165 percent, the proposed (NOPR) oven regulation - the 215 percent, the current (10 CFR 430) cooktop and oven regulations.

Table 5.1. Useful Energy Consumption Values Derived from the Metered Gas Study

Compared with Values in DOE Range Regulations

Cooktop Oven Source kBtu/yr Ratio kBtu/yr Ratio Metered Gas Study 483.1

__________ 

### 76.0

__________ 

### DOE Current Regu1ation6 947.5 2.11 160.7 2.18 DOE Proposed Regulation4 732.5 1.52 124.2 1.63 5-6

• Annual gas energy use, from 80 to 210 percent of standard value

• First cost, 75 to 150 percent of standard value

• Appliance life, plus and minus 2 years
• Gas cost, 80 and 120 percent of standard value. Appendix D discusses how the metered appliance study gas usage results have been correlated with the DOEprocedure's useful consumption values to be used in the calculation. Although the metered gas usage values are lower than those inferred from the DOE procedure, sensitivity values are included in the tables in Appendix A using the DOE values.

Gas Use Sensitivity Values



# I • The 80 and 125 percent values were chosen to reflect a spread that might be expected in individual usage where the metered gas study values, as derived in Appendix D, were the averages.

• The higher values were chosen to reflect the values used in DOE's

current and proposed regulations, which are shown in the Table 5.1
the 150 percent value corresponds roughly to the proposed (NOPR) cooktop standard's useful energy consumption
the 165 percent, the proposed (NOPR) oven regulation
the 215 percent, the current (10 CFR 430) cooktop and oven regulations.

Table5.1. Useful Energy Consumption Values Derived from the Metered Gas Study Compared with Values 

### in DOERange Regulations 

# I Cooktop 

# I Oven 

# I Source kBtu/yr 

# I Ratio kBtu/yr 

# I Ratio Metered Gas Study(27) 483.1 76.0 DOE Current Regulation(26) 947.5 2.11 160.7 2.18 DOE Proposed Regulation(4) 732.5 1.52 124.2 1.635-7



### Results

Table 5-2 summarizes the results for all design options that DOE included in the NOPR and which were considered technically feasible. Reducing the mass of the oven to save energy was considered infeasible, as discussed in Chapter 3. The reduced burner excess air design option could not be analyzed because it is not sufficiently defined. This table provides the following information:

Inputs - cooking energy for baseline ranges and modified ranges - total gas use and electricity use for base and modified ranges

- 

### added first cost • Annual energy savings in kBtu/yr Annualized Net Savings (or Loss) realized from each case at a 6 percent discount rate. • Annualized value of gas saved, assuming 6 percent discount rate • Energy factor for baseline and modified ranges • Cooking efficiency for baseline and modified ranges The tables in Appendix A show the individual year-by-year cash flows for each of the cases and include the input parameters. Also tabulated are the sensitivities of the annualized cost and benefitlcost ratio to the selected discount rates, the first cost, gas cost, unit life and gas consumption. 5-7

Results

Table 5-2 summarizes the results for all design options that DOE included in the NOPR and which were considered technically feasible. Reducing the mass ofthe oven to

save energy was considered infeasible, as discussed in Chapter 3. The reduced burner excess air design option could not be analyzed because it is not sufficiently defined. This table provides the following information:

• Inputscooking energy for baseline ranges and modified ranges total gas use and electricity use for base and modified ranges added first cost

• Annual energy savings in kBtu/yr

• Annualized Net Savings (or Loss) realized from each case at a

6 percent discount rate.

• Annualized value ofgas saved, assuming 6 percent discount rate

• Energy factor for baseline and modified ranges

• Cooking efficiency for baseline and modified ranges The tables 

### in Appendix A show the individual year-by-year cash flows for each ofthe

cases and include the input parameters. Also tabulated are the sensitivities ofthe annualized cost and benefit/cost ratio to the selected discount rates, the first cost, gas cost, unit life and gas consumption.

### Table 5-2. Summary of Results of life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Range Modlt cation AnriuaIz NatSavinga $t'yr Enrgy

Saved hltt'yr Gas Sev.d

Annualized S/yr Added

let Cost $ Gas Use

Base kBtyr Elect.

Ba,. kWt,r Cooking

En, Bat. kBtLWr Gas Us.

Mod. kBtt.yr Elect.

Mod. kWh/yr Cooking

En. Mod, kBttWr Cooking

Efficiency Baseline Cooking

Efficiency Modified Energy

Factor Baseline Energy

Factor Modified I Nooven000rWlndow, NoDoorOpenings 043 61) 0,43 0.00 2,792 1,204 2,732 1,224 5.92% 0.21% 2.72% 2.70% Standard Oven 2 No Oven DoorWindow, No 000rOpenlnga 025 35 0.25 0.00 1,139 01.5 1,066 1,104 61.5 1,031 7.13% 7.37% 5.64% 5.70% 8.6-Cleaning Oven 3 NoOvenDoorWlndow,4000rOpenlngs 024 34 0.24 0,00 2,792 1,284 2,750 1,250 5.92% 0.08% 2.72% 2.76% Standard Oven 4 NoOvenOoorWlndow, 4000rOpeninga '-002 3 '-002 0.00 1,130 01.5 1,000 1,142 01.5 1,069 7.13% 7.11% 5.04% 5.63% Self-Cleaning Oven 5 8tendlngPlIotsRspfacedwlthEiedronlctgnttIon,ExlstlngOr.taf 614 2,050 14.70 18.34 3,142 1,092 1,092 1,092 39.90% 39.90% 13.80% 39.90% Cooktc, 6 St.ndkrg Pilots Rtac.d wifhElectronlc IgnItion, 1/2 NewOutl*lCoat Ill 2,050 14.76 03.33 3,142 1,092 1,092 1,092 39.90% 39.90% 13.86% 39.90% Coolctq
7 StandIng PllotsRIacedwfthEiedonclgnitlon,N.wOuillet '-292 2.050 14.70 108.25 3,142 1,092 1,092 1,092 39,90% 39.90% 13.80% 39,90% Cooktop 8 StandIng PIlots R,taced wIlhEI.dronlc Ignition, ExlstingOuII.t -209 1,450 11.44 33.89 2,792 1,2U 1,204 29,2 1,304 5.92% 5.83% 2.72% 5,83% Standard Oven O StandingPilotsRlecedwfthEiectronlcIgnltlon,1/2NewOutietCost -0.12 ,469 11.44 78.69 2,702 1,284 1,204 29.2 1,304 5.02% 5.83% 2.72% 5.83% Standard Oven 10 8tendIng Pilots Rlaced wilhEledronlc Ignition, New Outlet ' -1015 1 489 11.44 123.88 2,792 1,204 1,204 29.2 1,304 5.92% 5.83% 2.72% 5.83% Standard Oven II knprovedDoorseats -018 1 0.09 3.06 2,792 1,284 2,780 1,271 5.92% 5.98% 2.72% 2.73% Standard Own 12 knprov.d000rSeals -021 11 0.06 3.15 1,139 61.5 1,066 1,129 01.5 1,056 7.13% 7.20% 5.64% 8.08% Self-Cleaning Oven 13 ForcsdConvedlon.ddedto8tandard-PIus-Electrlclgnltlon -1487 88 0.55 131.12 1,204 29.2 1,304 1,127 31.7 1,238 5.03% 0.15% 5.83% 0.15% Standard Oven
14 Reduced Ventflate -036 7 0.05 4.58 2792 1,264 2,786 1,277 5.92% 5.95% 2.72% 2.73% Stendard Oven 15 Reftedlv.Surf.c.a--Chrome-Piated OvonCavity -815 -185 -1.33 53.66 2,792 1,284 2,978 1,469 5.02% 5.17% 2.72% 2.55% Standard Oven to Refte.dlveSurtacea--CPrrorne-PiatedOvenCavtty -574 -129 -0.93 53.68 1,139 61.5 1,066 1,268 61.5 1,195 7.13% 6.36% 8.04% 5.15% Self-Cleaning Oven 17 Added Insulation forth. CdrlnetEnvelope -1 11 0 0.00 19.79 2,792 1,264 2,792 1,284 5.02% 5.92% 2.72% 2.72% Standard Oven 18 AddedtnsuIaIlonforthaClnslEnvalope -1 77 0 0.00 19.70 1,139 81.5 1,066 1,139 01.5 1,066 7.13% 7.13% 5.64% 5.84% S.lf-Cleanlng Oven 19 rlnsulatlonoutsld.otCombustlonCharnber -021 35 0.27 5.42 2,792 1,284 2,754 1,240 5,92% 0.10% 2.12% 2.76% Standard Oven 20 ReducedCorductlonLoa..e--PyrolyitcOvenConstructlon -685 211 1.56 93.82 2,792 1,284 2,576 1,068 5.92% 7.12% 2.72% 2.05% Standard Oven 00 Table 5-2. Summary ofResults ofUfe-Cycle Cost Analysis

red Added Gaa U•• Elect. Cooking GIIU

.. Elect. Cooking Cooking 1 Cooking 1 Energy Energy Ringe ModKlcatlon Neil$avll'lil SIi_ Annualized 10t Coat Ba•• B ... En. e••• Mod. Mod. En. Mod. Emclenc:y Emclenc:y Factor Factor**Sf'i~:.':·** : .ltBtLwI.· Styr S kBtulyr kWlVyr kBtulyr kBtulyr kWlVyr kBtulyr Baaellne ModKIed B

... llne ModKIed

No O\'In DoorWIndow, No DoorOponlnga**~.431)** 

### ':'"

..

### :eo**0.~3** 0.00 2,792**1,2e~** StlndOrd O\'In 2 No O\'In DoorWIndow, No DoorOpenlnga .'.:

..:::::!l.251•.::: ::':::<•.•.35 1 0.25 1 0.001 1,1391 61.51 1,0881 1.1041 81.5 SII-Clelnlng O\'In
3 No O\'In DoorWlndow,**~** DoorOpanlnga I':::';:;:' ·.:.0.241·."""')}" 341**0.2~1** 0.001 2,71121**1,2~** Stlndlrd O\'In**~** No O\'In DoorWIndow,**~** DoorOpenlnga •• .,..;':'O:02L "::::'::/":";"1 -0.021 0.001 1,1391 81.51 1,0881 1.1421 81 Sel-Cleanlng O\'In
5 Stlndlng Pliota Repillced wIIh Elodronlc**Ign~lon,** ExlltlngOUtlot I •. ':::;:.:.8:141::;::**:'A.~I 1~.7111** **18·~1** 3,H21 1,0112 Cooktap
8 Stondlng Pliota Replaced wRh Elodronic Ignition, 1/2 N_OUtlot COlt

....::.•.'::,J,1f

### r·.:'" ,:,.11.*1**1~.7111** 113.331**3,1~21** 1,0112 Cooktcp
7 Standing Pliota Replaced wIIh Elodronlc**Ign~lon,** N_Outlot**···:i:.~:·~r«2,~1 1~.7111**  108.251**3,1~21** 1,092 1 1,01121 1,01121 30.90%1 30.90%1 13.88%1 30.90% Cooktap
8 Stondlng Pliota Replaced**w~h** Elodronic Ignition, ExlltlngOUtlot**.}}}~l!:~I:'~** •••**:{<t."~1 11·~1**  3UOI 2,71121**1,2~1 1,~1**  29.21 1,3041 5.112%1 5.83%1 2.72%1 5.83% Stlndlrd O\'In
II Stlndlng Pilot. Replaced wIIh Elodronlc IgnRlon, 1/2 N_OUtlot COlt

# ;!i:~:]);[I:I~~il**11'~~1** 78.1101 2,71121 1,2MI**1'2O~1** 29.21**1'~1** 5·112%1 5.83%1 2.72%1 5.83%1 VI Siandirdo..n I 00 10 Btlndlng Pilot. Replaced wRh Elodronic Ignnlon, N_Outlot**11.~~** 123.l1li 2,7112**1,28~ 1,~**  29.2**1,~** 5.112% 5.83'" 2.72% 5.83% Standlrdo..n
11 Impro_DoorS.a" •.**{.~.~**,,:;-'1,1.81/,.:: ':;::;::'/"'1 0.09 1 3.08 1 2,7112 1 1,2MI 2,7801 1,2711 5.112%1 5.98%1 2.72%1 2.73% Stlndord O\'In
12 Improved DoorS.I" I :**.,:::~ -"O:~t**  I •••••}::/J,I 0.08 1 3.151 1,130/ 81.51 1,0881 1,1291 81.51 1.0581 7.13% S.I-Clelnlng O\'In
13 Forcod ColMIdlonedded to Btandard- PIuo-Eloetrlc IgnRlon .•**'i\-".14.~~**1:':::, ::::::;:
.....iflSl 0.551 131. 121**1,~1** 29.21**1,~1** 1,1271 31.71 1.2381 5.83% Btondlrdo..n
1**~** Reduced V.nt RII. :'::::.' :.,.O·ae.I •• :'''''::::'::>.'11 0.05 1 4.58 1 2,71121 1,2MI 2,7l1li1 1.2771 5.112% Stondordo..n
15 RofIoctlvo SUlfOCH- -Chrome-Plated O\'InCavity ::.<.:,:::--"6,1,51,**:·.{;"J~I** -1.33/ 53.l1li1 2,71121 1,2MI 2,0781 1,4801 5.112% Slandlrd O\'In
18 RofIoctIvoSUlfICH--Chrome-Plated O\'InCavtty**':?:~ '<;:~Ai:ill.:·:..:::"'l** 291 -0.031 53·l1li1 1,130/ 81.51 1,0881 1,2881 81.51 1.IOSI 7.13% S.1-Clelnlng O\'In
17 Added Irwuletlon lorthlCmmetEnvelope**1··.:'::::··:;;'.P~I::::···.:·:::,°1** 0.001 10.701 2,702 1**1,2~1** 2,7021 1.2MI 5.112% Standard O\'In
18 Added I""uletion lorIhICmmetEnvelope '.:':"1:!7I ':.:.DI 0.001 10.701 1,139 1 81.51 1,0881 1,130/ 81.51 1.0881 7.13% S.I-Cleanlng O\'In
19 :zo Irwuletlon outalda 01 Combuotlon Chlmber >""::SO:21I: :..:\::361 0.27 1**5.~21** 2,71121 1,2MI**2,75~1** 1.2481 5.02"- Stlndardo..n 20 Reduced Conduction LOII"-

- Pyrolytc O\'In CorwlllJcllon :::);"1.851 \: .• 2FI 1.58 1 93.1121 2,71121 1,2MI 2,5761 1.08111 5.112% Slandord O\'In

### 6. COOKING PERFORMANCE AND OTHER QUALITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
In considering the cooking performance of kitchen ranges and ovens, it must be recognized that the primary function of a range is to prepare food in a manner that provides acceptable and reproducible results for the consumer. Energy savings and designs that promote energy conservation are commendable, but this goal must be secondary to the primary function, particularly for an appliance that uses so little energy. The range/oven is an appliance of creativity, often more art than science, that must cook a wide spectrum of foods and provide appealing results with respect to appearance, flavor or taste, texture, odor, sanitation, "doneness," traditional recipes, ethnic considerations, and many other factors that are subjective in nature. There is no one single function for a range as there is, for example, for a water heater. A water heater simply heats water for the home. There is little, if any, user interaction with the appliance as long as it provides hot water at the right temperature and quantity. A furnace/air conditioner is another example; the only consumer interaction is adjustment of the thermostat and maintenance when required. The range, in contrast, has many interactions with the user. For example, there are literally thousands of ways to cook chicken, and each may require subtle adjustments of time, temperature, and preparation. Methods of preparation that require range interaction include variations in warming, holding, appearance, broiling, grilling, poaching, and sautéing. Even variations in sauces, food cutting, or dicing may require individual range adjustments dependent on the type and form of preparation. All of these functions require a range design capable of adjustment for many variations and the interaction of the cook. Ranges deliver energy that the cook must control to create a meal. This means that the range must produce expected performance when a food is prepared and energy saving criteria must be secondary to cooking performance. Many of the DOE design options have the potential to adversely affect the cooking process and produce undesirable results. 6. COOKING PERFORMANCE AND OTHER OUALITATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

In considering the cooking performance ofkitchen ranges and ovens, it must be recognized that the primary function of a range is to prepare food in a manner that provides acceptable and reproducible results for the consumer. Energy savings and designs that promote energy conservation are commendable, but this goal must be secondary to the primary function, particularly for an appliance that uses so little energy. The range/oven is

an appliance ofcreativity, often more art 

### than science, that must cook a wide spectr.Jm of foods and provide appealing results with respect to appearance, flavor or taste, texture, odor, sanitation, "doneness," traditional recipes, ethnic considerations, and many other factors that

are SUbjective in nature. There is no one single function for a range as there is, for example, for a water heater. A water heater simply heats water for the home. There is little, if any, user interaction with the appliance as long as it provides hot water at the right temperature and quantity. A furnace/air conditioner is another example; the only consumer interaction is adjustment ofthe thermostat and maintenance when required. The range, in contrast, has many interactions with the user. For example, there are literally thousands ofways to cook chicken, and each may require subtle adjustments of time, temperature, and preparation. Methods ofpreparation that require range interaction include variations in warming, holding, appearance, broiling, grilling, poaching, and sauteing. Even variations in sauces, food cutting, or dicing may require individual range adjustments dependent on the type and form ofpreparation. All ofthese functions require a range design capable of adjustment for many variations and the interaction of the cook. Ranges deliver energy that the cook must control to create a meal. This means that the range must produce expected performance when a food is prepared and energy saving criteria must be secondary to cooking performance. Many of the DOE design options have the potential to adversely affect the cooking process and produce undesirable results.

### 6-2

This section evaluates each of the design options that DOE analysis indicates will have energy savings potential from the perspective of the effects of the design option on food quality and cooking performance, rather than energy savings. Of necessity, this discussion will be more subjective than scientific because definitive experimental data are difficult to obtain in this area.

New DOE Design Options

1. Remove Oven Door Window


### Today, approximately one half or more of the ranges produced in the United States have a window in the oven door. (See Appendix C, Exhibits 2 and 4.) This a popular consumer feature for which the consumer is willing to pay extra when buying a range. There is no question that a windowed door loses more energy than a door without a window, providing that the door is not opened to inspect the food while cooking (see discussion in Chapter 2). If the door is opened several times, however, the energy savings decrease and may eventually produce an overall increase in energy consumption if the cook opens the door more than three or four times. A view of the cooking process is important to many cooks. The window does provide a valuable feature since the cook can glance in through the window and feel confident that the food is cooking properly, not boiling over, and most important, not burning or becoming overdone. A consulting home economist (Appendix C, Exhibit 2) testified in the DOE oral hearings that:



### My observations from cooking tests, where the oven door is opened repeatedly, show that foods situated at the front of the oven do not brown as well or cook evenly as those located in the center or back of the oven. Some testing has been done and the results show that cooking peiformance is not acceptable. Rearrangement of the food in the oven may be necessary in order to cook or bake it properly and evenly. My past experience tells me that many foods, in 6-2 

### "This section evaluates each of the design options that DOE analysis indicates will have energy savings potential from the perspective ofthe effects of the design option on food quality and cooking performance, rather than energy savings. Of necessity, this discussion will be more subjective than scientific because definitive experimental data are difficult to obtain in this area.

New DOE Design Options



### 1. Remove Oven Door Window
Today, approximately one half or more ofthe ranges produced in the United States have a window in the oven door. (See Appendix C, Exhibits 2 and 4.) This a popular

consumer feature for which the consumer is willing to pay extra when buying a range. There is no question that a windowed door loses more energy than a door without a window, providing that the door is not opened to inspect the food while cooking (see discussion in Chapter 2). If

### the door is opened several times, however, the energy savings decrease and may eventually produce an overall increase in energy consumption if the cook opens the door

more than three or four times. A view ofthe cooking process is important to many cooks. The window does provide

a valuable feature since the cook can glance in through the window and feel confident'that the food is cooking properly, not boiling over, and most important, not burning or becoming overdone. A consulting home economist (Appendix C, Exhibit 2) testified in the DOE oral hearings that: My observationsfrom cooking tests, where the oven door is opened repeatedly, show thatfoods situated at thefront of the oven do not brown as well or cook evenly as those located in the center or back of the oven. Some testing has been done and the results show that cookingperformance is not acceptable. Rearrangement of thefood in the oven may be necessary in order to 

### cook or bake itproperly and evenly. Mypast experience tells me that manyfoods, in

### 6-3

particular, popular baked foods such as cookies and muffins would be adversely affected. The ORTECH report'4 cited by DOE in the Technical Support Document4 states: "it is highly questionable, however, whether elimination of the oven window would be acceptable in the marketplace or would even result in any real energy savings." The analysis outlined in Chapter 2 supports this conclusion. From a food quality perspective, the window allows inspection of the cooking process without door openings that may cause failure of delicate food items such as souffles. No doubt a professional cook can prepare these items without a door window (commercial cooking ranges usually do not have windows), but the window is certainly a desirable feature for less accomplished home cooks who want to prepare such foods and reduce the risk of failure. The failure of just one recipe may well have more cost associated with it than the potential yearly energy savings from eliminating the door window (see Chapter 2 discussion). There is also the question of decreased safety. The presence of a window allows inspection without opening the door, thus reducing the probability of contacting hot surfaces or being scalded from steam that is present in some cooking operations. This is of special concern for homes with children or physically limited individuals.
2. Electric Ignition

The piloted range has some inherent advantages, and is often used in rural areas with frequent power outages. It also is often used in low-income areas because of its lower first cost. From a cooking performance standpoint there is no effect on the cooking quality from the use ofelectric ignition; however, the rangetop area directly above a pilot is sometimes used for warming purposes - melting butter, bread raising, etc. - at low heat levels that cannot be achieved using the conventional burners. A piloted oven is also often used for bread raising purposes or for drying of iron cooking pots after washing. 6-3

. particular, popular baked foods such as cookies and mUffins would be adversely affected. 

### The ORTECH report(l4) cited by DOE in the Technical Support Document(4) states: "it is highly questionable, however, whether elimination ofthe oven window would be acceptable in the marketplace or would even result in any real energy savings." The analysis outlined in Chapter 2 supports this conclusion. From a food quality perspective, the window allows inspection of the cooking process without door openings that may cause failure ofdelicate food items such as souffles. No doubt a professional cook can prepare these items without a door window (commercial cooking ranges usually do not have windows), but the window is certainly a desirable feature for less accomplished home cooks who want to prepare such foods and reduce the risk of failure. The failure ofjust one recipe may well have more cost associated with it than the potential yearly energy savings from eliminating the door window (see Chapter 2 discussion). There is also the question ofdecreased safety. The presence of a window allows inspection without opening the door, thus reducing the probability ofcontacting hot surfaces

or being scalded from steam that is present in some cooking operations. This is of special

concern for homes with children or physically limited individuals.



### 2. Electric Ignition

The piloted range has some inherent advantages, and is often used in rural areas with frequent power outages. It also is often used in low-income areas because ofits lower first cost. From a cooking performance standpoint there is no effect on the cooking quality from the use ofelectric ignition; however, the rangetop area directly above a pilot is sometimes used for warming purposes
- melting butter, bread raising, etc.

- at low heat levels that cannot be achieved using the conventional burners. A piloted oven is also often used for bread raising purposes or for drying of iron cooking pots after washing.6-4



### 3. Improved Door SealsfReduced Vent Rate
These two design options are combined in this discussion since they are related. A change in one will affect the other and each is important for good cooking performance. A complete door seal is not practical on a gas oven because the introduction of some air into the oven cavity is necessary for proper combustion, cooking performance, and internal convection. The function of the vent is to exhaust the products of combustion and the moisture produced by foods during the cooking process. If the vent is restricted, moisture and heat can collect near the top of the oven and cause unacceptable results such as the overcooking of foods situated in that area of the oven. Over many years, range manufacturers have optimized the size and vent rates in an oven to cover a wide variety of foods with varying moisture content. As was discussed in Chapter 2, at the point where energy savings become significant, serious problems with food quality have already occurred and problems with combustion, carbon monoxide production, safety, and range surface temperatures begin to arise. The energy savings cited by DOE are not applicable to gas ovens. To quote the DOE's cited documentation:'4

This improvement [Improved Door Seals] applies primarily to standard electric ovens with little impact on gas-fired standard or self-cleaning ovens.

. . For gas ovens, the amount of air coming in through the door seals is small compared to the combustion products flowing through the oven. Therefore, improvement of door seals has a negligible effect on gas oven efficiency.
4, Forced Convection (Standard Ovens)
Forced convection gas ovens are a very small fraction of the residential market and are currently available on only high-end, commercial-look ranges. Several range manufacturers are currently considering introducing a residential gas range with a convection feature. There is little doubt that a well engineered gas oven capable of convection baking or cooking 6-4 

### 3. Improved Door SealslReduced Vent Rate

These two design options are combined in this discussion since they are related. A change in one will affect the other and each is important for good cooking performance. A complete door seal is not practical on a gas oven because the introduction of some air into the oven cavity is necessary for proper combustion, cooking performance, and internal convection. The function of the vent is to exhaust the products ofcombustion and the moisture produced by foods during the cooking process. Ifthe vent is restricted, moisture and heat

can collect near the top of the oven and cause unacceptable results such as the overcooking offoods situated in that area ofthe oven. Over many years, range manufacturers have optimized the size and vent rates in an
oven to cover a wide variety offoods with varying moisture content. As was discussed in Chapter 2, at the point where energy savings become significant, serious problems with food quality have already occurred and problems with combustion, carbon monoxide production, safety, and range surface temperatures begin to arise. The energy savings cited by DOE are not applicable to gas ovens. To quote the DOE's cited documentation:(14) 

### This improvement [Improved Door Seals] 

### appliesprimarily to standard electric ovens with little impact on gas-fired standard or self-cleaning ovens. .. For gas ovens, the amount of air coming in through the doorseals is small compared to the combustionproducts flowing through the oven. Therefore, improvement of door seals has a negligible effect on gas oven efficiency.

4. Forced Convection (Standard Ovens)

Forced convection gas ovens are a very smaIl fraction ofthe residential market and are currently available on only high-end, commercial-look ranges. Several range manufacturers

are currently considering introducing a residential gas range with a convection feature. There is little doubt that a well engineered gas oven capable ofconvection baking or cooking6-5



### would provide useful functions to enhance and extend the cooking process. It must be emphasized that convection cooking is considerably different from conventional oven cooking and the results usually are different. There are obvious problems with consumer acceptance because a lifetime of cooking habits, passed down from generation to generation, would have to be changed if this design option were mandated for standard ovens. Full-time forced convection should not be mandated since considerable recipe conversions would have to be made, and sometimes, identical results cannot be obtained. To quote a home economist (Appendix C, Exhibit 2): Favorite family recipes will be affected by time/temperature changes required for convection cooking. For example, in baked goods, the temperature adjustment is critical to the texture. If the outside crust solid jfies before the interior has a chance to rise, a heavy and dense product will result and Grandma's Old Fashioned Sponge Cake may never be the same again. Arthur D. Little (ADL) (see Appendix C, Exhibit 5) has conducted a literature review on the effects of convection ovens on cooking quality. From peer-reviewed journals and individual research papers, the findings were as follows:

• Cookies baked in a convection oven were significantly different from those baked in standard or infrared ovens (actually judged better but "different"). • More energy was used in the convection baking process. • Heating [in a conventional oven] of ready-prepared or commissary type food yielded food of higher sensory quality with lower energy input than food prepared in a convection oven. • In a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with temperature increase due to the increased driving forces for heat and mass transfer. However, for products with low moisture content, the convection oven is not advantageous because the diffusion process is slow. • Food prepared by convection was identifiable [i.e. "different"]. 6-5 would provide useful functions to enhance and extend the cooking process. It 

### must be emphasized that convection cooking is considerably different from conventional oven cooking and the results usually are different. There are obvious problems with consumer acceptance because a lifetime ofcooking habits, passed down from generation to generation, would have to be changed if this design option were mandated for standard ovens. Full-time forced convection should not be mandated since considerable recipe conversions would have to be made, and sometimes, identical results cannot be obtained. To quote a home economist (Appendix C, Exhibit 2): Favoritefamily recipes will be affected by time/temperature changes requiredfor convection cooking. For example, in baked goods, the temperature adjustment is critical to the texture. 

### Ifthe outside crust solidifies before the interior has a chance to rise, a heavy and dense product will result and Grandma's Old Fashioned Sponge Cake may never be the same again.


### Arthur D. Little (ADL) (see Appendix C, Exhibit 5) has conducted a literature review

on the effects ofconvection ovens on cooking qUality. From peer-reviewed journals and individual research papers, the findings were as follows:

• Cookies baked in a convection oven were significantly different

from those baked in standard or infrared ovens (actuallyjudged better but "different").

• More energy was used in the convection baking process.

• Heating [in a conventional oven] ofready-prepared or commissary

type 

### food yielded food ofhigher sensory quality with lower energy input than food prepared in a convection oven.
.
• In 

### a convection oven, the rate of moisture loss increases with

temperature increase due to the increased driving forces for heat and mass transfer. However, for products with low moisture content, the convection oven is not advantageous because the diffusion process is slow.

• Food prepared by convection was identifiable [i.e."different"].

### 6-6

• Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beef when comparing convection and radiant [standard oven] modes.

5. Reduce Burner Excess Air (Cooktops)

It is difficult to determine if this design option would have any effect on cooking quality, since the design option itself is so inadequately defined that it could not be evaluated (see discussion in Chapter 2). "Shrouding" is quoted as one way of implementing this option but no details of the type or extent of shrouding are given. It might be assumed that some sort of metal partition to direct the heat up along the sides of the cooking vessel is implied. If this is the case, such an arrangement would only be suitable for specific pan or pot sizes, and it may not be possible to use a variety of sizes suitable for the food being cooked. This would greatly decrease the utility of the cooktop and might require specially made pots and pans designed to fit the burner rather than the many types of cookware currently used to prepare different foods. For example, a poaching pan that is long and narrow might not be able to be positioned for proper use. The issue of safety for the cook and household members also must be considered. The potential for increased carbon monoxide production exists for burners with reduced excess air as well as other combustion problems such as flame stability, especially at low flame settings. Without further details or a specific design, it is impossible to evaluate this option. No DOE test procedure data are available for an evaluation.

6. Reduced Vent Rate
The cooking performance implications of this option were covered under Item 3, above. Experimental data from Reference 8 show that reducing the vent size in a gas oven will not result in significant energy savings. 6-6



### • Cookies and chicken varied more than cakes and beefwhen

comparing convection and radiant [standard oven] modes.



### Sf Reduce Burner Excess Air (Cooktops)

It

### is difficult to determine ifthis design option would have any effect on cooking quality, since the design option itself is so inadequately defined that it could not be evaluated (see discussion in Chapter 2). "Shrouding" is quoted as one way ofimplementing this option but no details ofthe type or extent of shrouding are given. It 

### might be assumed that some sort of metal partition to direct the heat up along the sides ofthe cooking vessel is implied. If

### this is the case, such an arrangement would only be suitable for specific pan or pot sizes, and it may not be possible to use a variety of sizes suitable for the food being cooked. This would greatly decrease the utility ofthe cooktop and might require specially made pots and pans designed to fit the burner rather than the many types ofcookware currently used to prepare different foods. For example, a poaching pan that is long and narrow might not be able to be positioned for proper use. The issue of safety for the cook and household members also must be considered. The potential for increased carbon monoxide production exists for burners with reduced excess air

as well as other combustion problems such as flame stability, especially at low flame settings. Without further details or a specific design, it is impossible to evaluate this option. No DOE test procedure data are available for an evaluation.



### 6. Reduced Vent Rate

The cooking performance implications of this option were covered under Item 3, above. Experimental data from Reference 8 show that reducing the vent size in a gas oven will not result in significant energy savings.6-7



### 7. Reflective Surfaces (Ovens)
The most likely effect on food quality from reflective surfaces would be uneven distribution of heat, resulting in hot spots in the oven. Due to the possibility of unpredictable cooking results, the consumer would have to monitor the position of the food and the overall cooking performance of the oven constantly. Overbrowning of surfaces with subsequent underdone interiors for meat products is certainly a possibility. This raises the question of food safety because the food's interior many not reach proper sterilization temperatures. The TSD4 states: The reflective materials degrade after the first baking function and continue to degrade through the itfe of the product. This is especially true of self-cleaning ovens as the self-cleaning process damages the reflective walls and negates any possible energy savings. The experimental study8 shows that this design option actually loses energy and is therefore not viable as a mandated design option. Currently, about 29 percent of gas ranges and 58 percent of electhc ovens are self-cleaning (AHAM). There is no known cost-effective material that will maintain reflective features after self-cleaning cycles.

8. Added Insulation (Ovens)


### Adding insulation to an oven will not directly affect food quality except that it may dictate reduced oven capacity, since most of the ranges produced today are made to fit in a 30-inch space and the only way to add insulation would be to decrease the size of the oven cavity. One of the features consumers want most is a large oven cavity. Thus, any reduction would have to be considered a significant loss of feature for the consumer. For instance, even if a household is considered small, with one or two people, it is generally thought desirable to have a large oven for the one or two times a year that a special or family meal is produced, such as at Thanksgiving or Christmas. 6-7 

### 7. Reflective Surfaces (Ovens)

The most likely effect on food quality from reflective surfaces would be uneven distribution ofheat, resulting in hot spots in the oven. Due to the possibility of unpredictable

- cooking results, the consumer would have to monitor the position ofthe food and the overall cooking performance ofthe oven constantly. Overbrowning of surfaces with subsequent underdone interiors for meat products is certainly a possibility. This raises the question of food safety because the food's interior many not reach proper sterilization temperatures. The TSD(4) states: 

### The reflective materials degrade after thefirst baking.funCTion and continue to 

### degrade through the life oftheproduct. This is especiaUy true of self-cleaning ovens as the self-cleaningprocess damages the reflective waIls and negates anypossible energy savings.
The experimental study(8) shows that this design option actually loses energy and is therefore not viable as a mandated design option. Currently, about 29 percent ofgas ranges and 58 

### percent ofelectric ovens are self-cleaning (AHAM). 

### There is no known cost-effective material that will maintain reflective features after self-cleaning cycles.



### 8. Added Insulation (Ovens)
Adding insulation to an oven will not directly affect food quality except that it may dictate reduced oven capacity, since most ofthe ranges produced today are made to fit in a 30-inch space and the only way to 

### add insulation would be to decrease the size ofthe oven cavity. One ofthe features consumers want most is a large oven cavity. Thus, any reduction would have to be considered a significant loss offeature for the consumer. For instance,

even ifa household is considered small, with one or two people, it is generally thought desirable to 

### have a large oven for the one or two times a year that a special or family meal is produced, such as at Thanksgiving or Christmas.

### 6-8

The microwave oven and countertop toaster have taken over much of the small oven food preparation, but the consumer wants a larger oven for the times, for example, when a large turkey or multi-item menu must be prepared.

9. Reduced Thermal Mass
The same arguments for added insulation are applicable for reduced thermal mass. Under current manufacturing processes, reduction of sheet metal to thinner gauges is impractical. Crazing of the porcelain and denting of the oven walls would occur. The only way to effectively reduce thermal mass in modern ovens is to make them smaller, which leads to the problems of oven capacity that have been previously discussed. There would be no appreciable effect on food quality except that large portions could not be cooked or multiple items could not be cooked together as is commonly done now.
10. ImDroved Insulation (Ovens)
There would be no effect on food quality from improved insulation. If the improved insulation were thicker and required the reduction of oven cavity volume, the same arguments as stated above (Items 8 and 9) would apply.
11. Other Options Rejected by DOE
DOE rejected the design options of oven separator, reduced conduction losses, forced convection for self-cleaning ovens, sealed burners, reflective surfaces for cooktops, and added insulation for cooktops. Of these, the oven separator and forced convection would have the most impact on food quality. As wasmentioned, cooking uniformity, temperature distribution, and venting are issues with an oven separator in a gas oven. Forced convection produces cooking results that are different from standard cooking that may not be acceptable in all cases. 6-8 

### The microwave oven and countertop toaster have taken over much ofthe small oven food preparation, but the consumer wants a larger oven for the times, for example, when a large turkey or multi-item menu must be prepared.



### 9. Reduced Thermal Mass

The same arguments for added insulation are applicable for reduced thermal mass. Under current manufacturing processes, reduction ofsheet metal to thinner gauges is impractical. Crazing ofthe porcelain and denting ofthe oven walls would occur. The only way to effectively reduce thermal mass in modern ovens is to make them smaller, which leads to the problems ofoven capacity that have been previously discussed. There would be

no appreciable effect on food quality except that large portions could not be cooked or multiple items could not be cooked together as is commonly done now.


### 1Q. Improved Insulation (Ovens)

There would be no effect on food quality from improved insulation. Ifthe improved insulation were thicker and required the reduction ofoven cavity volume, the same arguments as stated above (Items 8 and 9) would apply.



### 11. Other Options Rejected by 

### DOE

DOE rejected the design options ofoven separator, reduced conduction losses, forced convection for self-cleaning ovens, sealed burners, reflective surfaces for cooktops, and added insulation for cooktops. Ofthese, the oven separator and forced convection would have the most impact.on food qUality. As was.mentioned, cooking uniformity, temperature distribution, and venting are issues with an oven separator in a gas oven. Forced convection produces cooking results that are different from standard cooking that may not be acceptable in 

### all cases.

### 6-9

Reflective surfaces for cooktops do not have any appreciable effect on food quality, and most manufacturers currently supply chromed reflectors. Sealed burner cooking characteristics are so similar to those of standard burners that it is not likely that there will be any observable difference in food quality. Reduced conduction losses would also not - affect cooking quality. 6-9 

### Reflective surfaces for cooktops do not have any appreciable effect on food quality, and most manufacturers currently supply chromed reflectors. Sealed burner cooking characteristics are so similar to those of standard burners that it is not likely that there will be any observable difference in food quality. Reduced conduction losses would also not affect cooking qUality.6-10 6-10

- ,

### 7. IMPLICATIONS OF THE NATIONAL APPLIANCE ENERGY CONSERVATION ACT (NAECA)
NAECA' is the culmination of a series of events, including energy legislation, efficiency standards rulemaldng, and litigation that began with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),( which was a response to the energy crisis that occurred in the early 1970s. EPCA was a broad piece of legislation that covered issues as diverse as the strategic petroleum reserve and automotive efficiency, and of which appliance efficiency was a relatively small part. EPCA instituted the development of efficiency test procedures and established the appliance labeling program, which are important parts of the legislation that play key roles in current efficiency standards activities. Nevertheless, under EPCA, appliance efficiency standards were not mandated. The National Energy Conservation and Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA)' succeeded EPCA. Like EPCA, NECPA was sweeping energy legislation, but unlike EPCA, NECPA mandated DOE to carry out rulemakings to establish minimum efficiency standards for many appliances (commonly referred to as NAECA). At the end of the rulemaking, DOE concluded that efficiency standards for appliances were not justified, thereby establishing what is commonly referred to as the "no-standard" standard for appliance efficiency. Furthermore, DOE's final rule prevented individual states from establishing appliance efficiency standards. As a result of DOE's actions in the NECPA rulemaking, DOE was sued by a coalition led by the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) (NRDC vs. Herrington, 1985) for violating the intent of Congress with the no-standard standard and the preemption of state standards. The court ruled against DOE and overturned the no-standard standard and the preemption provision. Following this ruling, several states began establishing minimum efficiency standards for appliances. Faced with the prospect of a patchwork of local efficiency standards, manufacturers cooperated with NRDC to support NAECA. The key provisions of NAECA are the establishment of initial minimum efficiency standards for covered products, a schedule for the review and amendment of these standards, 7. IMPLICATIONS OF THE NATIONAL APPLIANCE ENERGY CONSERVATION ACT (NAECA)

NAECA(1) is the culmination ofa series ofevents, including energy legislation, efficiency standards rulemaking, and litigation that began with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),<2) which was a response to the energy crisis that occurred in the early 1970s. EPCA was a broad piece of legislation that covered issues as diverse as the strategic petroleum reserve and automotive efficiency, and of which appliance efficiency

was a relatively small part. EPCA instituted the development of efficiency test procedures and established the appliance labeling program, which are important parts of the legislation that play key roles in current efficiency standards activities. Nevertheless, under EPCA, appliance efficiency standards were not mandated. The National Energy Conservation and Policy Act of 1978 (NECPA)(I) succeeded EPCA. Like EPCA, NECPA was sweeping energy legislation, but unlike EPCA, NECPA mandated DOE to 

### carry out rulemakings to establish minimum efficiency standards for many appliances (commonly referred to as NAECA). At the end of the rulemaking, DOE concluded that efficiency standards for appliances were notjustified, thereby establishing what is commonly referred to as the "no-standard" standard for appliance efficiency. Furthermore, DOE's final rule prevented individual states from establishing appliance efficiency standards. As a result ofDOE's actions in the NECPA rulemaking, DOE was sued by a coalition led by the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) (NRDC vs. Herrington, 1985) for violating the intent of Congress with the no-standard standard and the preemption of state standards. The court ruled against DOE and overturned the no-standard standard and the preemption provision. Following this ruling, several states began establishing minimum efficiency standards for appliances. Faced with the prospect of a patchwork of local efficiency standards, manufacturers cooperated with NRDC to support NAECA. The key provisions ofNAECA are the establishment ofinitial minimum efficiency standards for covered products, a schedule for the review and amendment of these standards,

### 7-2

a basic rulemaking procedure to follow in the review and amendment process, and preemption of state efficiency standards. The initial efficiency standards were established through negotiations between manufacturers and public interest groups, such as NRDC. The procedure for review and amendment of these standards was designed to account for the economic impacts of proposed standards on both industry and consumers. NAECA was intended to recognize the burdens that successive rulemaldngs place on manufacturers, so the rulemaking schedules were designed to provide time for manufacturers to meet higher minimum standards. And finally, the preemption of state standards made it possible for manufacturers to avoid the need to supply products that meet the requirements of multiple local standards. In addition to these provisions, NAECA was designed to adapt to changes in technology and to ensure that the imposition of more stringent minimum efficiency standards would not reduce the usefulness of appliances to consumers. The issue of changes in technology is addressed in NAECA by the provision for the review and amendment of the DOE test procedures4 that are used to determine the performance of covered appliances. By changing the relevant test procedures, DOE can ensure that the minimum efficiencystandards appropriately represent the performance of contemporary appliances with representative user behavior. The issue of preserving the usefulness of regulated appliances is addressed by the establishment of appropriate appliance classes and the recognition of thevalue of features and performance characteristics, or utility, to consumers. The eightproduct NOPR, which covers ranges and ovens, raises important issues related to both test procedures and to the interpretation of the important issue of appliance utility. The following sections address the implications of these issues in more detail as they relate to the proposed efficiency standards for ranges and ovens.
Test Procedure Implications
Test procedures are the foundation of efficiency standards under NAECA. The test procedure for each appliance is used to determine the efficiency of the appliance and specifies how the annual energy consumption of the appliance is calculated. The appliance 7-2



### a basic rulemaking procedure to follow in the review and amendment process, and preemption ofstate efficiency standards. The initial efficiency standards were established through negotiations between manufacturers and public interest groups, such as NRDC. The procedure for review and amendment ofthese standards was designed to account for the economic impacts ofproposed standards on both industry and consumers. NAECA was intended to recognize the burdens that successive rulemakings place on manufacturers, so the rulemaking schedules were designed to provide time for manufacturers to meet higher minimum standards. And finally, the preemption of state standards made it possible for manufacturers to avoid the need to supply products that meet the requirements of multiple local standards. In 

### addition to these provisions, NAECA was designed to adapt to changes in technology and to ensure that the imposition ofmore stringent minimum efficiency standards would not reduce the usefulness ofappliances to consumers. The issue ofchanges in technology is addressed in NAECA by the provision for the review and amendment ofthe DOE test procedures(4) that are used to determine the performance ofcovered appliances. By changing the relevant test procedures, DOE can ensure that the minimum efficiency standards appropriately represent the performance ofcontemporary appliances with representative user behavior. The issue ofpreserving the usefulness ofregulated appliances is addressed by the establishment ofappropriate appliance classes and the recognition ofthe value offeatures and performance characteristics, or utility, to consumers. The eightproduct NOPR, which covers ranges and ovens, raises important issues related to both test procedures and to the interpretation ofthe important issue ofappliance utility. The following sections address the implications ofthese issues in more detail as they relate to the proposed efficiency standards for ranges and ovens.

Test Procedure Implications

Test procedures are the foundation ofefficiency standards under NAECA. The test procedure for each appliance is used to determine the efficiency ofthe appliance and specifies how the annual energy consumption ofthe appliance is calculated. The appliance

### 7-3

efficiency is based on the operating characteristics of the appliance and the annual energy consumption is based on assumptions of how the appliance is used in "average" applications. The usage behavior assumptions play a critical role in the determination of the economic justifiability of increased efficiency levels because the level of usage is used to calculate the energy savings that would result from the implementation of more stringent efficiency standards. The amount of energy savings due to higher standards is used to estimate the operating cost savings to consumers, which, along with first costs and maintenance costs, is used to estimate the life-cycle cost to consumers for appliances at various candidate efficiency levels. In general, the higher the energy consumption of the baseline appliance, the greater the potential savings available from increased efficiency standards. Thus, the appliance usage assumptions have an important impact on the economic justification of higher efficiency standards. It is important that DOE take the necessary steps throughout the rulemaking process to ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to review the assumptions, analysis, and conclusions that support DOE's decisions at each stage of the process. Since test procedures are such a critical part of the evaluation of candidate standard levels, it is imperative that DOE's intentions relating to changes in test procedures be absolutely clear during the efficiency standard rulemaking process. Furthermore, since the conclusions regarding future efficiency standards are based on the test procedure, it is important that the test procedure used in the analysis produce results similar to the results that would be obtained from the test procedure in effect when the standards take effect. If this relationship is not assured, the conclusions of DOE's rulemaking analysis may be subject to question.
Appliance Utility Issues
NAECA rulemaking analysis has historically focused on quantifiable technical and economic issues, such as efficiency and life-cycle cost. This approach is often reasonable because the law is relatively clear about the technical and economic criteria required for establishing more stringent efficiency standards. From a rulemaking perspective, the quantifiable issues of technological feasibility and economic justifiability are relatively 7-3 efficiency is based on the operating characteristics ofthe appliance and the annual energy consumption is based on assumptions ofhow the appliance is used in "average" applications. The usage behavior assumptions play a critical role in the determination of the economic justiflability ofincreased efflciency levels because the level ofusage is used to calculate the energy savings that would result from the implementation of more stringent efflciency standards. The amount ofenergy savings due to higher standards is used to estimate the operating cost savings to consumers, which, along with flrst costs and maintenance costs, is used to estimate the life-cycle cost to consumers for appliances at various candidate efficiency levels. In general, the higher the energy consumption ofthe baseline appliance, the greater the potential savings available from increased efflciency standards. Thus, the appliance usage assumptions have an important impact on the economicjustiflcation of higher efficiency standards. It is important that DOE take the necessary steps throughout the rulemaking process to

ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to review the assumptions, analysis, and conclusions that support DOE's decisions at each stage ofthe process. Since test procedures

are such a critical part ofthe evaluation of candidate standard levels, it is imperative that DOE's intentions relating to changes in test procedures be absolutely clear during the efflciency standard rulemaking process. Furthermore, since the conclusions regarding future efflciency standards are based on the test procedure, it is important that the test procedure used in the analysis produce results similar to the results that would be obtained from the test procedure in effect when the standards take effect. Ifthis relationship is not assured, the conclusions ofDOE's rulemaking analysis may be subject to question.

Appliance Utility Issues

NAECA rulemaking.analysis has historically focused on quantiflable technical and economic issues, such as efficiency and life-cycle cost. This approach is often reasonable because the law is relatively clear about the technical and economic criteria required for establishing more stringent efflciency standards. From a rulemaking perspective, the quantiflable issues oftechnological feasibility and economicjustifiability are relatively7-4



### objective, so the results of the analysis can be more readily defended against public criticism. The Technical Support Documents (TSDs) that accompany the NOPR and Final Rule stages of each rulemaking provide a detailed, objective record of the assumptions and analytical approach used to identify appropriate standards levels. By focusing on the types of technical issues that are readily addressed by objective technical analysis, DOE has sought to avoid issues that may be subject to broader subjective criticism. However, in addition to addressing these key objective technical and economic issues, NAECA also was intended to ensure that efficiency standards only increase the efficiency of covered products without reducing the usefulness of those products to consumers. NAECA includes clear provisions for maintaining the utility of covered appliances to consumers. The first of these provisions is included as one of the seven criteria for economic justifiability, which states that the benefits of an efficiency standard exceed the burdens considering several criteria, including". . . any lessening of utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard. "(1) [Sec. 325(1)(2)(B)(i)(IV)] In addition, criteria for establishing appliance classes are provided to preserve appliances that have performance features not available in other appliance classes that warrant higher or lower efficiency standards' [Sec. 325(n)]. This provision is used to create separate appliance classes, such as self-cleaning and non-self-cleaning ovens, which have different features and utility for consumers and different performance characteristics. The issue of appliance utility is often one of the more contentious issues in a rulemaking since it can be difficult to quantify the value or benefits of a feature. Although the law specifically states that the availability of performance characteristics and features must be maintained, it also states that the burden of proof is the responsibility of interested parties, and that the Secretary makes the final decision regarding the value of particular utility to the consumer. It is evident that commenters to DOE rulemakings often have not provided the preponderance of.evidence necessary to .maintaincertain features. This may reflect a certain degree of ambiguity in the provisions of NAECA. The discussion of utility in the House of Representatives Report on NAECA (House of Representatives Report No. 100-11) provides additional insights that clarify the intent of congress with respect to appliance utility. The House Report states that DOE must not 7-4 

### objective, so the results ofthe analysis can be more readily defended against public criticism. The Technical Support Documents (TSDs) that accompany the NOPR and Final Rule stages ofeach rulemaking provide a detailed, objective record ofthe assumptions and analytical approach used to identify appropriate standards levels. By focusing on the types oftechnical .-- issues that are readily addressed by objective technical analysis, DOE has sought to avoid issues that may be subject to broader subjective criticism. However, in addition to addressing these key objective technical and economic issues, NAECA also was intended to ensure that efficiency standards only increase the efficiency of covered products without reducing the usefulness ofthose products to consumers. NAECA includes clear provisions for maintaining the utility ofcovered appliances to consumers. The first ofthese provisions is included as one ofthe seven criteria for economicjustifiability, which states that the benefits ofan efficiency standard exceed the burdens considering several criteria, including ".

. . any lessening of utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition ofthe standard. ,,(1) 

### [Sec. 325(l)(2)(B)(i)(IV)] In addition, criteria for establishing appliance classes are provided to preserve appliances that have performance features not available in other appliance classes that warrant higher or lower efficiency standards(l) [Sec. 325(n)]. This provision is used to create separate appliance classes, such as self-cleaning and non-self-cleaning ovens, which have different features and utility for consumers and different performance characteristics. The issue ofappliance utility is often one of the more contentious issues in a rulemaking since it can be difficult to quantify the value or benefits ofa feature. Although the law specifically states that the availability ofperformance characteristics and features must be maintained, it also states that the burden ofproofis the responsibility ofinterested parties, and that the Secretary makes the final decision regarding the value ofparticular utility to the consumer. It

### is evident that commenters to DOE rulemakings often have not provided the preponderance-ofevidence necessary to maintain-certain features. This may reflect a certain degree ofambiguity in the provisions ofNAECA. The discussion ofutility in the House ofRepresentatives Report on NAECA (House of Representatives Report No. 100-11) provides additional insights that clarify the intent of congress with respect to appliance utility. The House Report states that DOE must not

### 7-5

promulgate".

. . 

### a standard that manufacturers are only able to meet by adopting engineering changes that eliminate performance characteristics. "(13) [pg. 231 The report goes on to state that:

A standard would result in the 'unavailability' of characteristics, etc., f as a result of the standard, a product containing such characteristic would become prohibitively expensive, i.e., if therewould be minimal demand for the product having such characteristic.'3 The report also offers specific examples of performance characteristics and features that should be preserved. The examples of performance characteristics include "safety ability to clean or dry without adverse effects; serviceability; and incidence and cost or [sic] repair. (13) Examples of features include through-the-door ice service on refrigerators and noise levels'3 Although the exact characteristic or feature need not be kept, NAECA requires that "substantially the same" characteristics and features remain available. These specifications and examples clearly illustrate that congress intended NAECA to increase efficiency without sacrificing utility and without dramatically increasing the cost to consumers of particular features. Although manufacturers are not constrained to use any particular engineering approach in order to meet minimum efficiency requirements for performance-based standards, DOE's rulemaldng analysis is based on design options; therefore, efficiency impacts are directly tied to the presence or absence of particular design elements. This consideration is particularly important in cases where the addition or deletion of a particular feature is credited with a significant efficiency impact in the DOE analysis. For example, in the range and oven rulemaking, elimination of the oven door window was credited with a significant efficiency increase. However, the oven door window is an important feature to consumers that is similar to the through-the-door ice service feature for refrigerators cited by congress as an example of a useful feature. The analysis states that consumers obtain essentially the same functionality provided by the oven door window by simply opening the door, but this actionhas its own energy impact and may pose an unnecessary safety hazard. Although manufacturers may be able to meet the higher efficiency standard without eliminating the oven door 7-5 promulgate"

... a standard that manufacturers are only able to meet by adopting engineering changes that eliminate performance characteristics."(13) [pg. 23] The report goes

on to state that: 

### A standard would result in the 'unavailability' ofcharacteristics, etc., if, 

### as a result of the standard, aproduct containing such characteristic would becomeprohibitively expensive, i.e., 

### ifthere would be minimal demand for theproducthaving such characteristic. (13)
The report also offers specific examples ofperformance characteristics and features that should be preserved. The examples ofperformance characteristics include "safety

... ability to clean or dry without adverse effects; serviceability; and incidence and cost or [sic] repair.,,(13) Examples offeatures include through-the-door ice service on refrigerators and noise levels·(l3) Although the exact characteristic or feature need not be kept, NAECA requires that "substantially the same" characteristics and features remain available. These specifications and examples clearly illustrate that congress intended NAECA to increase efficiency without sacrificing utility and without dramatically increasing the cost to

consumers ofparticular features. Although manufacturers are not constrained to use any particular engineering approach in order to meet minimum efficiency requirements for performance-based standards, DOE's rulemaking analysis is based on design options; therefore, efficiency impacts are directly tied
to the presence or absence ofparticular design elements. This consideration is particularly important in cases where the addition or deletion ofa particular feature is credited with a significant efficiency impact in the DOE analysis. For example, in the range and oven rulemaking, elimination ofthe oven door window was credited with a significant efficiency increase. However, the oven door window is an important feature to consumers that is similar to the through-the-door ice service feature for refrigerators cited by congress as an example ofa useful feature. The analysis states

.that consumers obtain essentially the same functionality provided by the oven door window by simply opening the door, but this action has its own energy impact and may pose an unnecessary safety hazard. Although manufacturers may be able to meet the higher efficiency standard without eliminating the oven door

### 7-6

window, doing so would be likely to greatly increase the life-cycle cost of the oven, thereby reducing or eliminating the benefits to consumers of the higher efficiency. The issue of utility is particularly important for ranges and ovens because the perceived usefulness of these appliances is judged by their cooking quality, which is a highly subjective criterion. Thus, simple heat delivery is not a sufficient measure of the utility of cooking appliances. A design option may increase the energy efficiency of a cooking appliance, but if use of the design option alters the products of that appliance, consumer expectations may not be satisfied. For example, food cooked in convection ovens may or may not be satisfactory because, due to the nature of the heat transfer process in convection ovens, the characteristics of food cooked in these ovens may be different from those of food cooked in conventional ovens. In addition, cooking times and techniques specified in recipes may need to be substantially modified to yield successful results with convection ovens. Thus, even though a given design option may provide satisfactory results while saving energy, an appliance equipped with that option may not provide performance compatible with consumer expectations, thereby altering the utility of the appliance in an unacceptable way. To satisfy the requirements of NAECA, DOE not only must consider purely quantitative technical and economic data, but also must carefully evaluate the impacts of theproposed standards on the continued availability of useful features and performance characteristics. Although the proposed standards for cooking appliances do not prescribe which design options manufacturers must use to meet the standards, they may implicitly preclude the use of features that consumers find beneficial or require the use of options that change the quality of food prepared with these appliances. The fact that the nature of the cooking process is not simply a matter of effective heat transfer and that food quality is the most important, though purely subjective, measure of the usefulness of cooking appliances suggests that DOE must give careful consideration to the issue of appliance utility in the range and oven rulemaking. 7-6 window, doing so would be likely to greatly increase the life-cycle cost of the oven, thereby reducing or eliminating the benefits to consumers of the higher efficiency. The issue of utility is particularly important for ranges and ovens because the perceived usefulness ofthese appliances isjudged by their cooking quality, which is a highly subjective·

-- criterion. Thus, simple heat delivery is not a sufficient measure ofthe utility ofcooking appliances. A design option may increase the energy efficiency ofa cooking appliance, but ifuse ofthe design option alters the products ofthat appliance, consumer expectations may not be satisfied. For example, food cooked in convection ovens mayor may not be satisfactory because, due to the nature ofthe heat transfer process in convection ovens, the characteristics offood cooked in these ovens may be different from those offood cooked in conventional ovens. In addition, cooking times and techniques specified in recipes may need to be substantially modified to yield successful results with convection ovens. Thus, even though a given design option may provide satisfactory results while saving energy, an appliance equipped with that option may not provide performance compatible with consumer expectations, thereby altering the utility ofthe appliance in an unacceptable way. To satisfy the requirements ofNAECA, DOE not only must consider purely quantitative technical and economic data, but also must carefully evaluate the impacts ofthe proposed standards on the continued availability ofuseful features and performance characteristics. Although the proposed standards for cooking appliances do not prescribe which design options manufacturers must use to meet the standards, they may implicitly preclude the use offeatures that consumers find beneficial or require the use ofoptions that change the quality offood prepared with these appliances. The fact that the nature ofthe cooking process is not simply a matter ofeffective heat transfer and that food quality is the most important, though purely subjective, measure ofthe usefulness ofcooking appliances suggests that DOE must give careful consideration to the issue ofappliance utility in the range and oven rulemaking.

. 

### ,

### 8. CONCLUSIONS

Of the DOE design options evaluated for kitchen ranges, none are justified based on - life-cycle cost; loss of consumer utility; or safety, technical, or food qualilty considerations. This is primarily due to the low level of gas usage that is typical in today's cooking process. A range uses so little gas during the year (approximately $14 for a self-cleaning range at current gas rates) that it is difficult to justify design modifications for energy savings, since the cost of the modifications proposed by DOE cannot be recovered on the basis of energy saved.Life-cycle cost analysis shows only the use of electric ignition on stand-alone cooktops can be justified. Stand-alone cooktops are a small fraction of total gas cooking appliance production. The following recommendations are offered to DOE and the appliance industry, based on the research conducted to date.
o Use a recent metered study27 as basis to determine Annual Gas Cooking Energy Consumption usage levels. Do not use ConditionalDemand Analysis (CDA) estimates to determine usage for low gasconsuming appliances such as ranges. • Use current average energy costs without markup factors. • Assumptions of efficiency increases need to be reexamined by DOE based on the experimental data in this and the previous GRI report.8 • Consumer utility and cooking quality must be considered when analyzing design options, as intended by NAECA. • A 2.81 markup from manufacturer was used throughout this analysis as a simple alternative to a variety of markups based on complex modeling. Because 90 percent of the market is the combined range product, one markup is more representative of today's marketplace than separate numbers for various pieces (cooktops, ovens). • At least four door openings during each test period should be considered when evaluating the energy savings of removing the oven door window. 8. CONCLUSIONS

Ofthe DOE design options evaluated for kitchen ranges, none arejustified based on life-cycle cost; loss of consumer utility; or safety, technical, or food qUalilty considerations. This is primarily due to the low level ofgas usage that is typical in today's cooking process. A range uses so little gas during the year (approximately $14 for a self-cleaning range at current gas rates) that it is difficult tojustify design modifications for energy savings, since the cost ofthe modifications proposed by DOE cannot be recovered on the basis ofenergy saved.Life-cycle cost analysis shows only the use ofelectric ignition on stand-alone cooktops

can bejustified. Stand-alone cooktops are a small fraction oftotal gas cooking appliance production. The following recommendations are offered to DOE and the appliance industry, based

on the research conducted to date.

• Use a recent metered study(27) as basis to determine Annual Gas

Cooking Energy Consumption usage levels. Do not use Conditional Demand Analysis (CDA) estimates to determine usage for low gasconsuming appliances such as ranges.

• Use current average energy costs without markup factors.

• Assumptions ofefficiency increases need to be reexamined by DOE

based on the experimental data in this and the previous GRI report.(8)

• Consumer utility and cooking quality must be considered when

analyzing design options, as intended by NAECA.
• A 2.81 markup from manufacturer was used throughout this analysis

as a simple alternative to a variety of markups based on complex modeling. Because 90 percent ofthe market is the combined range product, one markup is more representative of today's marketplace than separate numbers for various pieces (cooktops, ovens).

• At least four door openings during each test period should be

considered when evaluating the energy savings ofremoving the oven door window.

### 8-2

• Reduce the number of self-clean cycles per year in the DOE test procedure from seven to, at most, four. • Use current forecasts of future fuel costs.'°' 11) • Include maintenance costs and installation costs where necessary (e.g., both maintenance and installation costs for electric ignition, and maintenance costs for forced convection). Given the low gas usage of ranges, the very small benefits of any proposed efficiency standard must be weighed against the lost utility to the consumer and the increased cost of compliance to the manufacturer. 8-2

• Reduce the number of self-clean cycles per year in the DOE test

procedure from seven to, at most, four

.

• Use current forecasts offuture fuel costs.(10, 11)

• Include maintenance costs and installation costs where necessary

(e.g., both maintenance and installation costs for electric ignition, and maintenance costs for forced convection).
Given the low gas usage ofranges, the very small benefits ofany proposed efficiency standard must be weighed against the lost utility to the consumer and the increased cost of compliance to the manufacturer.

, "

### 9. REFERENCES

1. Public Law 100-12, "National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987," January 6, 1987. 2. Public Law 94-163, "Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)," December 22, 1975. 3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), "Final Energy Conservation Test Procedures,Conventional Ranges, Cooking Tops, Ovens, Microwave Ovens, Microwave/Conventional Ranges, Furnaces and Vented and Unvented Home Heating Equipment," Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 91, Wednesday, May 10, 1978, Part 11, Federal Energy Administration, Part 430, Energy Conservation Program for Appliances, Final Rule. 4. DOE, Technical Support Docwnent: Energy Efficiency Standards for Conswner Products: Room Air Conditioners, Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, Mobile Home Furnaces, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Pool Heaters, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts & Television Sets, Volume E. Ranges and Ovens, DOE Report No. DOEIEE-0009, November 1993.
5. DOE, "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Proposed Rule," Docket No. EE-RM-90-201, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 43, Friday March 4, 1994, Part II, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 430. 6. DOE, op. cit., Technical Support Document.

. . Vol. E, p. A-S (Southern California Edison, 1988). Data from Residential Energy Usage Comparison project by Southern California Edison Company and EPRI. It is based on a sample of 92 households in Orange County, California. Derived from B. A. Smith, R. T. Uhlaner, and T. N. Cason, Residential Energy Usage Comparison Project: An Overview, Quantum Consulting, Inc., Berkeley CA, October 1990. 7. Electhc Power Research Institute (EPRI), Residential Energy Usage Comparison: Findings, EPRI Report No CU-7392, Project 2863-3, Final Report, prepared by Quantum Consulting, Inc., Berkeley CA, August 1991. 8. Battelle, et al., Technical Input to NAECA Rulemaking for Gas-Fired Ranges, GRI Interim Report No. GRI-93/0319, July 1993. 9. DOE, "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for 9 Types of Consumer Products," Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 189, September 28, 1990. 9. REFERENCES

1. Public Law 100-12, "National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987," January 6, 1987.
2. Public Law 94-163, "Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), " December 22, 1975.
3. 

## u.s. Department ofEnergy (DOE), "Final Energy Conservation Test Procedures, Conventional Ranges, Cooking Tops, Ovens, Microwave Ovens, Microwave/Conventional Ranges, Furnaces and Vented and Unvented Home Heating Equipment," 

### Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 91, Wednesday, May 10, 1978, Part 11, Federal Energy Administration, Part 430, Energy Conservation Program for Appliances, Final Rule.
4. DOE, 

### Technical Suppon Document: Energy Efficiency Standardsfor Consumer Products: RoomAir Conditioners, Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, Mobile Home Furnaces, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Pool Heaters, FluorescentLamp Ballasts & 

### Television Sets, Volume E. Ranges and Ovens, DOE Report No. DOE/EE-0009, November 1993.
5. DOE, "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Proposed Rule," Docket No. EE-RM-90-201, 

### Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 43, Friday March 4, 1994, Part 

## n, Office ofEnergy .Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 10 CFR Part 430.
6. DOE, op. cit., 

### Technical Suppon Document.

. . Vol. E, p. A-5 (Southern California Edison, 1988). Data from Residential Energy Usage Comparison project by Southern California Edison Company and EPRI. It 

### is based on a sample of92 households in Orange County, California. Derived from B. A. Smith, R. T. Uhlaner, and T. N. Cason, 

### Residential Energy Usage Comparison Project: An Overview, Quantum Consulting, Inc., Berkeley CA, October 1990.
7. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 

### Residential Energy Usage Comparison: Findings, EPRI Report No CU-7392, Project 2863-3, Final Report, prepared by Quantum Consulting, Inc., Berkeley CA, August 1991.
8. Battelle, et al., 

### Technical Input to 

### NAECA Rulemakingfor Gas-FiredRanges, GRI Interim Report No. GRI-93/0319, July 1993.
9. DOE, "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for 9 Types of Consumer Products," 

### Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 189, September 28, 1990.

### 9-2

10. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 1994 With Projections to 2010, Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(94), January 18, 1994. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. 20585. 11. EIA, Average Regional End-Use Energy Price Projections to the Year 2030, Report No. SR/EDID-91-03, Prepared for the Office of Federal Energy Management Programs, U.S. Department of Energy. 12. DOE, op. cit., Technical Support Docwnent.

. . Vol. E, p. 1-23. 13. H.R. Report No. 100-11, 100± Congress, 1st Session, pp. 22-23. 14. ORTECH International, Energy-Efficient Electrical Product Knowledge Base. Prepared by ORTECH International, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, for the Canadian Electrical Association, C.E.A., No. 821 U 678, October 1989, p. 27.
15. DOE, Engineering Analysis, Washington D.C., DOE/CS-0166, June 1980, pp. D7-3 to D7-4. 16. National Electrical Code, National Fire Protection Associates (NFPA), Batterymarch Park, Quincy MA, NFPA7O, August 14, 1993, Section 210-50(c). 17. SAl, Energy Efficiency Program for Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Science Applications, Inc., La Jolla CA, Report No. HCP/M60727-01, prepared for DOE under Contract CR-04-60727-0O, 1977, p. 6. 18. Dacor, Convection Plus: Single and Double Electric Ovens Use and Care, User's Manual, May 1992. 19. Lovingood, R.P., E.A. DeMerchant and L.J. Hines, "Oven Performance in Convection vs. Radiant Mode," Proceedings of the 45th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference, Madison WI, May 9-11, 1994. 20. Heist, J., and M.L. Cresser, "Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Baking of Molasses Cookies Prepared with Bleached and Unbleached Flour and Baked in Infrared, Forced Air Convection, and Conventional Deck Ovens," Journal of Food Science, Vol. 55, No. 4, 1990, pp. 1095-1100. 21. AHAM, letter from Craig A. Schulz, Director, Marketing and Economics, AHAM, to Isaac Turiel, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, February 15, 1991, p. 3. 9-2 10. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 

### 1994 With Projections to 2010, 

### Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(94), 

### January 18, 1994. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Washington D.C. 20585.
11. EIA, Average Regional End-Use Energy Price Projections to the Year 2030, 

### Report No. SRIEDID-91-03, Prepared for the Office ofFederal Energy Management Programs, U.S. Department ofEnergy.
12. DOE, op. cit., Technical SupponDocument

. .. Vol. E, 

### p. 1-23.
13. H.R. Report No. 100-11, looth Congress, 1st Session, pp. 22-23.
14. ORTECH International, Energy-Efficient Electrical Product Knowledge Base. 

### Prepared by ORTECH International, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, for the Canadian Electrical Association, C.E.A., No. 821 U 678, October 1989, p. 27.
15. DOE, Engineering Analysis, 

### Washington D.C., DOE/CS-0166, 

### June 1980, pp. D7-3 to D7-4.
16. National Electrical Code, 

### National Fire Protection Associates (NFPA), Batterymarch Park, Quincy MA, NFPA70, August 14, 1993, Section 21O-50(c).
17. SAl, Energy Efficiency Programfor Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, 

### Science Applications, Inc., La Jolla CA, Report No. HCP/M60727-01, 

### prepared for DOE under Contract CR-04-60727-oo, 1977, p. 6.
18. Dacor, Convection Plus: Single andDouble Electric Ovens Use and Care, 

### User's Manual, May 1992.
19. Lovingood, R.P., E.A. DeMerchant and L.J. Hines, "Oven Performance in Convection vs. Radiant Mode," Proceedings of the 45thAnnual International Appliance Technical Conference, 

### Madison WI, May 9-11, 1994.
20. Heist, J., and M.L. Cresser, "Sensory Quality and Energy Use for Baking ofMolasses Cookies Prepared with Bleached and Unbleached Flour and Baked in Infrared, Forced Air Convection, and Conventional Deck Ovens," Journal of Food Science, 

### Vol. 55, No.4, 1990, pp. 1095-1100.
21. AHAM, letter from Craig A. Schulz, Director, Marketing and Economics, AHAM, to Isaac Turiel, StaffScientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, February 15, 1991, p. 3.

### 9-3

22. ADM, Costing Analysis of Design Options for Residential Appliances and Space Conditioning Equipment, Final Report, prepared by ADM Associates, Inc., Sacramento CA, for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, December 1987. 23. AHAM, op. cit., p. 2, Section e.
24. Conswner Reports, "Guide to Choosing a Gas Range," January 1994, pp. 12-17.
25. Flood, J., and T. Enga, "Energy Conservation Aspects of Cooking Appliances," Proceedings of the 1983 International Gas Research Conference, Watson House, British Gas Corp., 1983, pp. 741-754.
26. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix I. 27. Battelle, Metered Ranges, Cooktops and Ovens in the Northern Illinois Gas Residential Load Study Data Base, GRI Topical Report No. GRI-93/0204, July 1993. (This report was also included as Appendix F in Reference 8.) 9-3 22. ADM, Costing Analysis of Design OptionsforResidentialAppliances and Space Conditioning Equipment, Final Report, prepared by ADM Associates, Inc., Sacramento CA, for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, December 1987.
23. AHAM, op. 

### cit., p. 2, Section e. 24. ConsumerRepons, "Guide to Choosing a Gas Range," January 1994, pp. 12-17.
25. Flood, J., and T. Enga, "Energy Conservation Aspects of Cooking Appliances," Proceedings ofthe 1983 International Gas Research Conference, Watson House, British Gas Corp., 1983, pp. 741-754.
26. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix I.
27. Battelle, Metered Ranges, Cooktops and Ovens in the Nonhem Illinois Gas Residential Load Study Data Base, GRI Topical Report No. GRI-93/0204, July 1993. (This report was also included as Appendix F in Reference 8.)9-4 9-4

### Appendix A Results of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Appendix A 

### Results ofLife-Cycle Cost Analysis

### A-i

APPENDIX A. RESULTS OF LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
Tables A-i through A-20 show the inputs, outputs, and year-by-year cash flows for - each design option analyzed. The block in the upper left shows the added installed cost for the design option, the energy usage for the modified range, and the cooking efficiency and energy factor. The next block to the right shows assumptions about fuel cost scenario, discount rate, appliance life and markup from factory floor manufacturing cost to retail sale. Below these are the inputs for the base case range, energy use, and efficiencies for the base case range.The last two blocks show the figures of merit for the modified case and the sensitivities to gas cost, life, discount rate, equipment cost, and energy usage. The energy usage sensitivity values of 165 and 215 percent correspond roughly to the ratio of gas use inferred for ovens from the DOE proposed (NOPR) and current (10 CFR 430) procedures to the gas use found in the metered appliance study. The 150 and 215 percent values correspond roughly to the ratios calculated for cooktops for the proposed and current DOE rules. See Chapter 5 for details on the assumptions. The section at the bottom of the spreadsheet shows the cash flows by year for the modified range and base case range. A-I



### APPENDIX A. RESULTS OF LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

Tables A-I through A-20 show the inputs, outputs, and year-by-year cash flows for each design option analyzed. The block in the upper left shows the added installed cost for the design option, the energy usage for the modified range, and the cooking efficiency and energy factor. The next block to the right shows assumptions about fuel cost scenario, discount rate, appliance life and markup from factory floor manufacturing cost to retail sale. Below these are the inputs for the base case range, energy use, and efficiencies for the base

case range. The last two blocks show the figures of merit for the modified case and the sensitivities to gas cost, life, discount rate, equipment cost, and energy usage. The energy usage sensitivity values of 165 and 215 percent correspond roughly to the ratio ofgas use inferred for ovens from the DOE proposed (NOPR) and current (10 CFR 430) procedures to the gas
use found in the metered appliance study. The 150 and 215 percent values correspond roughly to the ratios calculated for cooktops for the proposed and current DOE rules. See Chapter 5 for details on the assumptions. The section at the bottom ofthe spreadsheet shows the cash flows by year for the modified range and base case range.

### Table A-O. Summary of Results of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

ReModUjcelIon AIVUOZCd Ne- $,r Erorgy

doved Ut'yr Get Saved

Aiviuñzed 9/yr Added

letCost $ Ove Use

Bus kffittyr Elect.

Bate kWh/yr Cooking

EnBa,. kB(Wyr G.e Use

Mod. kB1i,r Eled.

Mod. kWtyr Cooldng

En.Mod. kBhyr Cooking

Efficiency Baselne Cooking

Efficiency Modtled Energy

Factor Basetne Energy

Factor ModOled

I NesnooorW!ndow,No000rOpaninga 041 60 0.43 0.00 2,792 1284 2,132 1,224 892% 02I% 2.72% 2.78% 81.,derd Oven 2 NoOvenDoorWlndow,N0000rOpenlngs 023 35 0.25 0.00 1,130 81.5 1,008 1,104 01.8 1,031 1.13% 7.31% 5.84% 5.70% Sd-Cleaning Oven 3 NoOvonDoorWndow,4DoorOp*nings 021 34 0.24 0.00 2.702 1,284 2,750 1,250 8.92% 0,00% 2.72% 2.70% Otaidard Oven 4 NoOvenOoorWlndow,4000rCper*ige 00i -3 -0.02 0.00 1,130 01.8 1,060 1,142 01.5 1,060 7.13% 7.11% 8.04% 8.03% Sd-CIeer*rg Oven 8 8tagPaflqstacedw9hEledronlEaIetingOctls4 -314 2,0410 *4,70 10.34 S,142 1,092 1,002 1,002 3900% 39.00% 13.86% 39,90% Cooktop 0 Ole gPllotsfliecadwRhE bn,1/2NewOlstCoat ill 3.050 14.78 03.33 3,142 1,002 1,002 1,002 3900% 3900% 13.66% 3900% Cooktcp
1 StandingP0otsRsptsnedwhEledmnlcflN.wOtAls4 -29 3.050 14.70 108.25 3,142 1,002 1,002 1,002 3990% 30.90% 13.88% 30.00% Cool0 • OgPotsRnedw$hEledclgnffion.EsI$tIngOsdlet -2C2 1,492 11.44 33.89 2,702 1,284 1,204 29.2 1,304 8.02% 6.03% 2.72% 8.63% Staiderd Oven 0 Standing POols Replaced w6hEledronlc $gr8lon, 1/2 NewOIet Cost - II Il 1,450 11.44 10.80 2,702 1,284 1,204 20.2 1,304 8.02% 6.03% 2.72% 5.83% Standard Oven 10 SleqPNotsRepdwIhEl.dctgnhlIon,N.wOiAlet -1013 1.469 11.44 123.08 2,702 1,264 1,204 20.2 1,304 8.02% 8.83% 2.72% 8,83% Standard Oven II ksprovedDoor8e.ls -010 13 000 3.08 2,702 1,284 2,780 1,271 5.02% 810% 2.72% 2.73% Staintard Oven 12 knproved000r8aals -021 II 0.00 3.15 1,130 8I.8 1,088 1,129 01.8 1,050 7.13% 7.20% 8.84% 5.08% SeO-Ctsanlng Oven 13 Forc,dConvsctlonaddsdtoslend&rd-PIue-EladrlctgnOlon -1401 60 055 131.12 1,204 292 1,304 1,127 31.7 1,230 8.03% 0.18% 8.03% 6.15% Standard Oven
14 Reduced VeedRate -03. P 0.05 4.68 2,792 1,284 2,768 *277 8.02% 8.95% 2.72% 2.73% Standard Oven 18 ReOodtve8ialicee--Clwoene-PIatndOvflCav6y -013 -105 -1.33 63.88 2,792 1,264 2,078 1,480 6.02% 8.17% 2.72% 2.85% Standard Oven 18 Re41sde8waces--Clwoine--PietedOvSnCan$y -57.1 -129 -0.03 83.88 1,130 01.5 1,088 1,288 81.5 *105 1.13% 630% 8.04% 5,15% Sel-Cteanltg Oven 17 AddedlnsutantortheCdkle*EflVOlops -1 77 0 0.00 10.70 2,702 1,284 2,702 1,284 8,02% 6,02% 2.72% 2.72% Standard Oven IS Added Insulation br the CdtnetEnvelope -I 17 0 0.00 10.70 1,130 01.5 1,006 1,130 81.5 1,068 7.13% 7.13% 8.04% 5.64% Sd-Cleaning Oven 10 rlneulatlonoul.IdeofConibustlenChwrblr -021 38 0.27 5.42 2,702 1,284 2,754 1,240 002% 0.10% 2.72% 2.70% Standard Oven 20 RartucedCorductlonLo.seI--PyrOIyICOVOnCOflattIon -88.. 217 1.58 03.82 2,792 1,254 2,578 1,066 5,92% 7,12% 2.72% 2,05% Standard Oven Range Mod.leallon

No o..n000'WIndow. No 000'Op.nIng'

StorIIa,do..n 2 Noo..n Doo'WIndo

.... No Doo'Oponlngl SI.-Cloaningo..n 3 Noo..n000'WIndow. 4Doo,Opening. StorIIerd 0.." Noo..n 000'WIndow. 4Doo,Opining. S.I-C".nIngo..n 8**Bllnd~** PIoII Roplaced wlhElocIronic Ignllon. E

...**I~**o..c
... Coold

...
•**Blllnd~** PIoI. RopIoclKl wlhElocIronic Ignllon. 1/2

_ o..clolCOil Cooldop
7**Blllnd~** PIGII RoploclKl wlhElocIronic Ignllon.

_ a..
... Cooldop

•**Blllnd~** PIola Roplacad willElocIronic Ignllon. E

...**I~**o..c
... BtorIIanlo..n

•**Blllnd~** PIGI. Roplaced wlhElocIronic Ignllon. 1/2_o..c
... COil

, IIlonderdo..n 1 0**Btond~** PIotI RoploclKl willElocIronic Ignllon.

_ o..c
... I Ionderd 0.." 11 ImproYOd 000'1

.... llonderdo..n 12 ImproYOdDoo'I

.... 1

.. -CIoanIng o..n 13 Forc:al Co_Ionaddod 10BI.nderd

- ptuo

- EIocI,Ic Ignllo" I Ionderd o..n 14 Roducad Ven! Roll IlIInderdo..n
II ReIIacI

....BurI_- -CIIrorno-P!alod o..nCavIy llonderdo..n 18 ReIIacI

....lurI

....--CIIrorno-P!alod o..nClvty "'-C"1nIngo..n 17 AddId !noulollon 10, "'"Cmln'"Envelope 8tanlerdo..n 1 B Addod !noulallo" 10,lho Cmln'"ElMllopl 1"-C"1nIngo..n II r !noulallon oUllld.01 CombuollonChamb., llardlnlo..n 20 Roducad ConduellonlOlln- -l'yrolVlco..nConolrucllon ltorIIanlo..n 

### Table A-O. Summary ofResults of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Elocl. COOking En. a ••• kBllW'

1.012

1.012

1.012

1.304

1.088 Cooking Eftlclancy Ba

..... COOking Eftlclancy Mod.1ad Energ)' Flelo, Mod.1ad



## > t!.>Table A-i. No Oven Door Window, No Door Openings--Standard Oven

COST CALCULATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS FIESULTS @6% DIac. Rt. Al CauIaIIona are In Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Coil Scenario DOE, Rs.tdantat, Ret. Ca.. Annusized Net Say. 043 SAir Discount Rate (R.a 0.0% Benett/Cost(.) NA MODIFIED RANGE Applance UI., Year. 10 hInt Rate of Relom NA Mark Up fran Manulsctuttng Cost 2.61 SImple Payback NA Added kiataled Cost $ 0.00 Net Energy Saved 60 ltBtu/yr BASE CASE RANGE Annusized Gee 8av. 0.43 SNr MaIntenance Cost, 8, NPV @6% 0.00 MaIntenance Cost, 8, NPV @6% 0.00 Os., Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Bttflrr 1,224 Gas, AnnualCooldng Use, 1000 Btrrr 1,264 Gas, Non-Cooking PIlate, 1000 BtJ4rr 1506 0.., Non-Cooldng Plot., 1000 Btj'r 1,508 SENSITIVITY Gsa, 8.6 Clean, 1000 Blu/yr, 0 Cycles 0 0.., 8.11 Clean, 1000 Btu/yr, 0 Cycles 0 Gas,Total Uae, l0000tu/yr 2,732 Oa.,Total Use, l000Btu4,r 2,702 . GAS COST An Say, $ BR/Cat SensltMty 60% 0.35 NA to Ga. 120% 0.52 NA Cost
APPLIANCE LIFE An Say, $ BIt/Cat Energy, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Blu 1,224 Energy, kulual Cooking U.., 1000 Btujyr 1,264 Cooking Eflclsncy 8.2l Cooking Ef%clsncy 5.92% SensitIvity -2 0.43 NA Energy, Total Annual Us., 1000 BItt/yr 2.732 Energy, Total Annual U.., 1000 Blu/yr 2,792 toYrs. Ut. 2 0.44 NA Energy Fsctor 2.78% Energy Fsctor 2.72% CitIng.

Year 1997 1908 1Q00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 DISCOUNT RATE An Say, $ BR/Cat SensitIvity 2.0% 0.44 NA to Dlac'nt 7.0% 0.43 NA Rate 15.0% 0.42 NA

FiRST COST SensitIvity 75% to FIrst 65% Coat 120%

150% GAS QUANTITY SenittMty 60% to Amount 125% olGa., 150% Base& 105% Modilled 215% An Say, $ BR/Cit 0.43 NA 0.43 NA 0,43 NA 0.43 NA MSav,$ BR/Cal 0.35 NA 0.54 NA 0.65 NA 0.71 NA 0.93 NA

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Cost, Addtlonal 0.00 Maintenance Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MnualNatjralGaaCost 17.10 11.56 16.02 18.30 18.50 16.88 19.18 19.46 10.62 20.18 20.50 20.86 21.22 21.60 21.99 22.38 22.70 23.20 23.48 0.00 Annual Electricity Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCoats 0.00 17.10 17.58 16.02 16.30 16.80 18.66 10.16 19.46 10.62 20.16 20.50 20.66 21.22 21.00 21.00 22.38 22.70 23.20 23.48 0.00
BASE CASE RANGE Maintenance Coat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNa*.ralGaaCo.t 11.48 11,94 18.42 18.71 10.00 10.30 19.80 10.01 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.20 23.71 23.99 0.00 MnualElactilclty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCoats 11.48 11.04 16,42 18,71 10.00 19.30 19.60 10.01 20.25 20.60 20.05 21.32 21.68 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.11 23.90 0.00
IESLLT8 Net8aitnga,ModltiedRang. 0.00 0.38 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.00 (a) ItInlIalcost positive, net present valu, at future aavlngsflnltlalcost; It nltlalcostnegatIve, Inlial .Ivlnge/NPV of futursco.ta. DATA SET No. A-i (DOE-I) 05/20/94 Table A-l. No Oven Door Window, No Door Openings--StandardOven

COST CAlCUlATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS RESULTS @**~** Dloc. RI. An CllcuIaUon. IraIn Conllant 1990Dona

.. Fuel ColI**Sc."a~o** DOE, Resld81'al, Ret. c••• Annu••zedNot Sav. 0.43 Sly, DISCOUNT RATE An Sav, S BnICII Dlocount Rata**(Ra.~** 8.0% Beneftt/ColI(a) NA MODIFIED RANGE Applonc. lJIe,v
.... 18 Int.,1 Rate01 Rallm N

... SenllUoAty 2.0% 0.44 N

... Mark4> !ram Manufacturing ColI 2.81 Simple Poyba:k N

... to Dloc'nt 7.0% 0.43 N

... Added InIl.ftIed ColI, S 0.00 NetEnergy Saved 80 kBtuly' Rat. 15.0% 0.42 NA BASE CASE RANGE Annullized Ga. Say. 0.43 Sly, MaintenlnCO ColI, .,NPV@ 8% 0.00 MaintenlnCO ColI, " NPV@ 8% 0.00 FIRST COST An Sav, S Bn/CII GIl,AnnuliCookIng IJI., 1000BlJlyr 1,224 Ga.,AnnualCooldng UIa, 1000BlJIy' 1,284 Ga.,Non-Cooking Pliol., 1000BlJIy' 1,508 Ga.,Non-CookIng PlIoI.,I000BIJIy' 1,508 SENSITIVITY SenlllMty 75% 0.43 N

... Ga., sonClean, 1000Bluly',0eyelet 0 G••,s.rClean, 1000Blulyr, 0eyelet 0 toRrII 85% 0.43 NA Ga.,ToIalUla, 1000Bluly' 2,732 Ga.,ToIallJle, l000Blu/yr 2,782 GAS COST An Sav,' Bn/CII Coli 120% 0.43 N

... 150% 0.43 N

... Senoltlvlty 80% 0.35 NA toG•• 120% 0.52 NA GAS QUANTITY An Sav, S Bn/CII Coot S81111Mty 80% 0.35 No<. APPLIANCE UFE An Sav,' Bn/CII to Amount 125% 0.54 No<. Enorgy. 1rInu.1Cooking UIa, 1000Blul\ 1.224 Energy. IrInualCookIng UIa. 1000Blu/yr 1.284 of G••, lSO'1C. 0.85 NA CookIng Ellclency 8.21% Cooldng Ellclency 5._ Sonoltlvlty -2 0.43 NA 80••& 185% 0.71 No<. Energy.Tolal """"aiUla, 10lIlBluly' 2.732 Energy. ToI.1 """"aIUla. 10lIlBluly' 2,782 to V

...Ule 2 0.44 N

... Modifted 215% 0.83 NA Energy FEto, 2.78% EnergyFEto' 2.72% Chango

V ••

, 1887 lDD8 

# ,_ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200S 2007 2008 200G 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 

## > I W MOOtFIED RANGE InllaftledColI.AddIfonll 0.00 MoInt811nCO ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annu.1 N.ll

..1 Ga.ColI 17.10 17.58 18.02 18.30 18.50 18.88 10.18 111.48 10.82 20.18 20.50 20.88 21.22 21.80 21.88 22.38 22.70 23.20 23.48 0.00 Annu.1 ElecloIcIty ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ToI.ICoab 0.00 17.10 17.58 18.02 18.30 18.50 18.88 10.18 10.48 10.82 20.18 20.50 20.88 21.22 21.80 21.88 22.38 22.70 23.20 23.48 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Mlllnt811nCO ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnuliNall

..1 GuColI 17.48 17.04 18.42 18.71 10.00 10.30 18.80 10.01 20.25 20.80 20.05 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.28 23.71 23.88 0.00 AnnuliElecloIcIty ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ToIalCoab 17.48 17.04 18.42 18.71 10.00 10.30 111.80 lD.Ol 20.25 20.80 20.05 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.28 23.71 23.88 0.00 RESULTS N

..Sa>Ang•• ModftIed Range 0.00 0.38 0.311 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.40 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.00

(.) KlnI'alcootpooltlva.n

..preuntv.llo01Murau>Ango,1nltl.lcoat; K lnItIalcoatneg_.InI••lu>Ang./NPV01IUturacoot•. D

...TASET No

....-l (DOE-I)**08!2~**Table A-2. No Oven Door Window, No Door Openings- -Self-Cleaning Oven

COST CALCULATION DOLLARS AlICalculatlon, araln Constant 1990 Doflars

MODIFIED RANGE Mded ln.le8sd Coat, $ 0.00
Malntananc. Coat, S. NPV @ 8% 89.05 Gas, Annual Cooldng Us., l000Bta/yr 932 Gas, Non-Cooldng Pilots, 1000 RU/yr 0 Gas, 8.8 Clean, 1000 Etu/yr, 4 Cycle. 173 Gas,TotalUs, I000Btu/yr 1104 Electclty, Annual Cooldng Us., Wh/yr 29.2 Elecl4clty, Clock, kWh/yr 31.5 EIeClclty, 808 Clean, kWh/yr 4 Cycles 0.7 Electilclty, Total, kWh/yr 01.5 Energy, Annual Cooldng 1.1.., 1000 BtuA 1,031 Cooldng Etfictsncy 7.37% Energy, Total Annual U$, 1000 Stu/yr 1,314 Energy Fsctor 5.79%

Year 1997 ASSUMPTIONS Fuel Coat 8cenao DOE, Rasldantel, Rat. Case Discount Rate (Real) 0.0% Applanc. life, Years 19 Mark Lfl, Iron, Mmulscturlng Coat 251

BASE CASE RANGE ISU1TS @6% DIsc. Rt. Annualzed Net 8ev. 0.25 S/yr BOneR/Cost(s) NA kThnI Rat. of Rdjm NA Siniple Psybsck NA Net Energy Saved 35 kBtu/yr Annuslzsd Gas 8ev. 0.25 S/yr MsInIOnanCe Cost, 5, NFV @ 8% 89.05 Gas, MnualCooldng Use, 1000 BtJ/yr 908 Gas, Non-Cooldng PIlot,, 1000 Sti/yr 0 SENSITIVITY Ge,, 8.8 Clean, 1000 Blu/yr, 4 Cycle. 173 Gas, Total Ii,., 1000 Btu/yr 1,139 GAS COST An 8ev, $ 03/Cat Eleclcfty, Annual Cooldng Us., kW1/yr 29.2 SanallIvity 80% 0.20 NA EleC1elty, Clock. kWh/yr 31.5 to Ga. 120% 0.30 NA ElectrIcIty, SoIl Clean, kWh/yr 4 Cycle. 0.7 Coat ElectrIcIty, Total, kWh/yr 01.5 APPLIANCE UFE An Say, S Bit/Cit Energy, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Btu/yr 1,000 Cooldng EffIcIency 7.13% San slttvtty -2 0.25 NA Energy, Total Annual Use, 1000 RU/yr 1,349 to Yr.. UI. 2 0.25 NA Energy Fsctor 5.04% Change

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 DISCOUNT RATE An 5ev, 5 BIt/Cat San a4tJ.lty 2.0% 0.25 NA to OIsc'nt 7.0% 0.25 NA Rate 15.0% 0.24 NA

FiRST COST An Say, S Bft/Cst Smsllntty 75% 0.25 NA to FIrst 85% 0.25 NA Cost 120% 0.25 NA

150% 0.25 NA GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, 5 Bit/Cat SmaItI4ty 80% 0.20 NA toAmcunl 125% 0.31 NA olGa,, 150% 0.38 NA Base& 165% 0.41 NA ModII.d 215% 0.54 NA

2012 2013 2014 2015 2010 2017
MODIFIED RANGE Installed Coat, Addtlonal 0.00 Malntanance Coat 0.00 1.62 1.62 1.82 1.62 1.82 1.82 3.19 5.01 6.19 10.47 1365 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnualNetiralGasCoat 0.91 7.10 7.28 7.40 7.51 7.03 7.75 7.87 8.01 8.15 8.29 8.43 8.58 8.73 8.89 9.05 9.21 9.36 9.49 0.00 AnnuslElactilclty Coat 4.90 4.94 498 5.03 5.00 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.01 5.83 5.05 5.66 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00 TotalCoet, 0.00 11.81 13.86 14.09 14.25 14.41 14.58 14.75 16.29 18.32 21.72 24.21 27.61 30,11 33.47 35.47 37.02 38.11 39.67 39.80 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malntanance Coat 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.52 1.62 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13,65 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnualNatrralGseCo.t 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.83 7.75 7.81 8.00 8.12 8.20 8.40 8.55 8.70 8.85 9,00 9.17 0.33 9.50 9.67 9.79 0.00 AnnualEleclilotty Coat 4.00 4.94 4.08 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.61 5.83 5.85 5.68 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00 lotalCoeta 12.03 14.08 14,32 14.48 14.05 14.82 15,00 16.54 18.57 21.97 24.47 27.68 30.38 33.74 35.75 37.30 38.40 39.90 40.09 0,00 FIESULTS Nat8asfngs,Modl5edRang. 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.20 0.29 0.30 0.00 (a) ItkrItaI coat positive, not pruelt veIn. of future sartngsflnltlalcost; II InItIal coatnegitlva, InItal aedngs/NPV of future coats. DATA SET No. A-3 (DOE-I) 00125,'94 TableA-2. No Oven Door Window, No Door Openings--Self-C\eaningOven

COST CALClAA TION DOLlARS ASSUMPTIONS RESULTS @ 8'JI. Dlee. FIt. Aft C.IcuIaHon. I

..In Conllanl IIKKl Dalla

.. Fu.1 Coot 8conodo DOE. _d

......I. ReI. Ca•• Annuolzed Nal SIV. 0.25 Styr DISCOUNT RATE AnSav. S Bll/CII Dleeounl Ral.(Ra19 8.0'lI0 eenoftVCoII(o) NA MODIFIED RANGE ApplllnCllJle.V.I

.. lD 1n1.,1 RaI.oI RotJm NA SanallMty 2.0'lI0 0.25 NA MilkL\O !ram Manutoctur1ng Coot 2.81 SimplePaybS::k NA to DlIe'nt 7.0'lI0 0.25 NA Added InlllRedCoot•• 0.00 NolEnergy Soved 35 kStutyr Ral. 15.0'" 0.24 NA BASE CASE RANGE AnnullzedGa. Sav. 0.25 Styr
Molnt

....onc. Coot. '. NPV@ 8'JI. eD.OS MoInl

....oncoCoot. S. NPV@ 8'" 8D.OS FlRBTCOOT An Sav.S Bll/CII G•••Annu.1CooI<Ing u... 1000IIlItyr 032 G••• """""ICooldng u... 1000IIlItyr 1188 Gal.Non-Cooldng Pilot., 1000IIlItyr 0 GI •• Non-Cooldng Pilot•• 1000IIlItyr 0 SENSITIVITY S",.ltMty 75'" 0.25 NA Gil.B••Clean. 1000Blutyr. 4 Cyc""' 173 GI •• S••Clean. 1000Blutyr. 4 Cyc,,", 173 10Fl,., 85'" 0.25 NA Gal,Total u.., l000Blutyr 1.104 GI ••Total u... 1000Blutyr 1.13D GAS COOT AnSav. S Bll/CII Cool 120'lI0 0.25 NA 150'lI0 0.25 NA EIoctIlcl1y,ImuIICooldng u... _tyr 211.2 EIoctIlcl1y.lmualCooldng u... _tyr 211.2 SanalUYity 80'lIo 0.20 NA Eloctdctty. Clock, kWhtyr 31.5 EIoctIlcl1y. Clock, kWhtyr 31.5 loG•• 120'lI0 0.30 NA GAS QUANTITY AnSav•• BftICII EIoctIlcl1y, B••Clean.kWhtyr. 4 Cycle. 0.7 EIoctIlcl1y. BoW Clean.kWhtyr.4 Cyc,,", 0.7 Cool EIoctIlcl1y. Total. kWhtyr 81.5 EIoctIlcl1y,**Tot.~** kWhtyr 81.5 BanlHlYlty 80'lIo 0.20 NA APPUANCE UFE AnSIV.S Blt/CII 10A/11ounl 125'" 0.31 NA Energy. ImuIICooldng u.., 1000BluJ\ 1,031 Enervv,lmuilCooklng u...l000Blutyr 1.088 olGa•• 150'lI0 0.38 NA CookIng Eftlcloncy 7.37'" Cooldng EftIcIoncy 7.13'" B

....1HIYIty -2 0.25 NA ea•• & 185'" 0.41 NA Enervv.Totallmullu... 1O!D Blutyl 1.314 Enervv. TotalAnnual u... 1O!D Blutyr 1.34D 10 V

... lJIe 2 0.25 NA ModIfted 215'" 0.54 NA EnorvvFoetor 5.711% EnervvFoetor 5.84'" Chang.

Vaar 1997 I_ I_ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200!1 2007 200!1 200II 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 

## > I**~** MODIFIED RANGE InIl.RedCoot. Ad_al 0.00 M.tnt.,oncoCoot 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.1D 5.01 8.1D 10.47 13.85 15.D3 lD.ll 2O.D3 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 """,,"INIIl.Jral Ga.Coot 8.Dl 7.10 7.28 7.40 7.51 7.83 7.75 7.87 8.01 8.15 8.211 8.43 8.58 8.73 8.8D D.OS D.21 D.38 D.4D 0.00 """,,"IEIoctIlcl1y Coot 4.110 4.114 4.18 6.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.81 5.83 5.85 5.88 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

TotIICooI. 0.00 11.81 13.88 14.oe 14.25 14.41 14.58 14.75 18.211 18.32 21.72 24.21 27.81 30.11 33.47 35.47 37.02 38.11 3D.87 39.80 0.00
BASE CASE RANGE M.tnt.,oncoCoot 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.1D 5.01 8.1D 10.47 13.85 15.D3 lD.ll 2O.D3 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 """,,"INIlIral Ga.Coot 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.83 7.75 7.87 8.00 8.12 8.28 8.40 8.55 8.70 8.85 D.OO D.17 D.33 D.SO D.87 D.7D 0.00 """,,"IEIoctIlcl1y Coot 4.110 4.114 4.18 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5,53 5.81 5.83 5.85 5.88 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

TotllCooII 12.03 14.08 14.32 14.48 14.85 14.82 15.00 18.54 18.57 21.D7 24.47 27.88 30.38 33.74 35.75 37.30 38.40 3D.18 40.oe 0.00
REBULTB NalBlvlng•• _edRangl 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.211 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.211 0.211 0.30 0.00

(I) 1I1nI."lcOllpOli1lve,nalpNl8n1 va".0I1utu

..aa.mgo,1nltlllcool;HlnIUalcoolnagllllve.InI'"1 oavIngl/NPV01Iutu

..COlli. DATASET No.A-3(DOE-l) 08/21V94Table A-3. No Oven Door Window, 4 Door Openings- -Standard Oven

COST CALCLLATION DOUARS ASSUMPTIONS FE8UIT8 @8% DIsc. RI.
N Calculations ar.In Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Cost Scen01o DOE, Residonlal, Ret. Case Annualzed Net 8ev. 0.24 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 8ev, $ Bit/Cat Discount Rate (Real) 80% Ben.Ilt/Cosl(a) NA MODIFIEDRANGE AppIancsLllS,Yaars to InlrnlRaI.of Return NA SonslItuty

' 2.0% 0.25 NA MerIcL,fromMonutsctuPin9COlt 2.81 SImplePaybk NA toDlsc nt 7.0% 0.24 NA MdsdlnstaIledCosl S 000 NetEnergyBaved 34kBtu/yr Rate 15.0% 0.23 NA

, BASE CASE RANGE Annusized Gas Say. 0.24 S/yr Mslntmence Cost, 8, NPV @ 0% 0.00 Malntaance Cost, 8, NPV @6% 0.00 FIRST COST An 8ev, S Bit/Cat Gas, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 Bti/yr r 1000 ELi PIl t 1,250 1 508 Gas, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 ELi/yr 1000 ELi/yr Non-Cooldng Pilots Gas 1,284 1,508 SENSITIVITY Smsttlvfty 75% 0.24 NA /y o s, Ga., Non-Cooldng O.s S5SCI.an l000BIU/yr OCyCISS , 0 , , Gss,S&tCl..n,l000BtU/yr.OCYCISS 0

. laFlrsi 85% 0.24 NA

, , . G.s,Total Use, l000Btu/yr 2,759 GasTotal Us, l000Btutyr 2,792 GAS COST An Say, S Bit/Cat Coat 120% 150% 0.24

0.24 NA

NA SansItF4ty 80% 0.19 NA to Gas 120% 0.29 NA GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, S Bit/Cal Coat BonsltMty 80% 0.19 NA APPUPNCE UI'S An Say, S ElI/Cal toAniount 125% 0.30 NA Energy, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000Btu 1,250 Energy, Annual Cocldng LIsa, 1000 ELi/yr 1,284 ItM 2 0 24 NA ot Gas, Bas.& 150%

165% 0.35

0 40 NA

NA Cooldng Ethldsncy Energy, Total Annual Us., 1000 ELi/yr 6.08% 2,759 Ccoldng EllIdincy Energy, Total Annual Use, 1000 ELi/yr 5.92% 2,792 S,i, ty - to Yrs. UI. 2 . 0.24 NA ModIH.d 215% . 0.52 NA Energy Fsctof 2.76% Energy Ftoc 2.72% Change

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Cost, Aduttlonal 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Malnturance Cost
. 17 27 .

17 73 .

18 20 .

16 48 18.77 19.00 19.36 19.67 20.01 20.35 20.70 21,06 21.42 2181 22.20 22.60 23.01 23.42 23.70 0.00 Mnu.lNatlralGsiColt

. 0 00 .

0 00 .

0 00 .

0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Electilcity Cost
. 00 17 27 0 .

17 73 .

18 20 .

18.48 18.17 1Q06 19.36 19.87 20.01 20.35 20.70 21.06 21.42 21.81 22.20 22.60 23.01 23.42 23.70 0.00 TotalCost. . . . . BASE CASE RANGE 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Milntsnsnce Cost
. 11 48 .

17 94 .

18 42 .

18 71 19.00 19.30 1060 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 AnnualNatiralGasCost . 0 00 .

0 00 .

0 00 .

0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Electilcity Cost

. 17 48 .

17 94 .

15 42 .

18 71 .

19 00 10.30 19.00 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.58 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0,00 TotalCosts . . . . . IESILTS Net 8a*igs, Modified Rang. 0.00 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0,00 tlt

a) H Inlial cost positive, net pruant vatue 01 future aasingsflnltlalcost; It InItial costnegsllve, InItial satngs/NPV of future costs. - DATA SET No. A-2 (DOE-i) 06/28(94 Table A-3. No Oven Door Window, 4 Door Openings- -StandardOven

COST CALCUlATION DOLlARS ASSUMPTIONS RESUlTS @8%Dloc. RI.

....C.lculation

....In Contl.." 1090Oolla

.. Fuol ColI**8con.~o** DOE, ReDld..,'al, ReI. Ca._ AnnualzedNol Sa•. 0.24 Styr DISCOUNT RATE An So., S Bft/Ctl Dlocounl ReI.**(Rel~** O.!l'I. eenoftVCo.'(a) NA MODIFIED RANGE Applonce UIII, V

.... 18 Inlml ReI.of Re"m NA S.,1I1M1y 2.!l'I. 0.25 NA MarkUp !ram Monulacturing ColI 2.81 Simple PoybllCk NA 10 Dloc'nl 7.!l'I. 0.24 NA Added IntlilledCotl, S 0.00 Nol Enorgy Saved 34kBlutyr Ral. 15.!l'I. 0.23 NA BASE CASE RANaE AnnualzedG••SlY. 0.24 Styr MoInl.,onc_ColI, S, NPV @ 8% 0.00 MoInl.,onc. ColI, S, NPV @ 8% 0.00 ARSTCOST An Sov, S Bft/Ctl G••,AnnualCookIng Un, 1000Blltyr 1,250 a ••,AnnualCooking Un, 1000Blltyr 1,284 ao., Non-Cooking Pilot., 1000Blltyr 1,!508 a ••,Non-CookIng Pilot., 1000Blltyr 1,!508 SENSITIVITY s..,oItIvIty 75% 0.24 NA aa.,SorClean, 1000Btutyr, 0 Cyclol 0 Ga., s.nClean, 1000Blutyr, 0 Cyclol 0 loAm 85% 0.24 NA Ga.,Total Un, 1000Btutyr 2,750 al.,Tolal Un, l000Btutyr 2,7112 aASCOST AnSa.,S Bft/Ctl ColI 12!l'1o 0.24 NA 15!l'1o 0.24 NA S.,IIti>1ty I!O'!Io 0.18 NA toG•• 12!l'1o 0.28 NA aAS QUANTITY An Sa., S Bft/Ctl ColI S..,oItIvIty I!O'!Io 0.18 NA APPUANCE UFE An So.,S Bft/Ctl 10Amounl 125% 0.30 NA En_IVY, InnualCooking Un, 1000Btufl 1,250 EnolVY, InnullCookIng uaa, 1000Blutyr 1,284 ofG••, 15!l'1o 0.38 NA Cooking Efilcloncy 8.08% Cooking Efilcloncy 5._ Sa1ll11v1ty -2 0.24 NA ea••• 185% 0.40 NA EneIVY, Tolallnnualuaa, 1000 Btutyr 2,758 En.IVY, ToI.llnnualuaa, 1000Btutyr 2,7112 10V

...UIII 2 0.24 NA Modiftod 215% 0.52 NA Ener;yFICIOf 2.78% EneIVYFICtOf 2.72% Chong.

Va.r 1l1li7 

# I_ I_

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 

## > I VI
MODIFIED RANGE IntlilledColI,AddIIonal 0.00 MoInI.,once ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annuli Na",.1a ••ColI 17.27 17.73 18.20 18.48 18.n 18.08 18.38 18.87 20.01 20.35 20.70 21.08 21.42 21.81 22.20 22.80 23.01 23.42 23.70 0.00 AnnualEloctilclty ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ToIalCooII 0.00 17.27 17.73 18.20 18.48 18.n 18.08 18.38 18.87 20.01 20.35 20.70 21.08 21.42 2Ul 22.20 22.80 23.01 23.42 23.70 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE MoInI..onceColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.QO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnuliNo"

..1aa.ColI 17.48 17.94 18.42 18.71 18.00 18.30 18.80 18.81 20.25 20.80 20.85 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.28 23.71 23.l1li 0.00 AnnualEloctilclty ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ToIalCoiIl 17.48 17.94 18,42 lUI 1'.00 18.30 18.80 18.111 20.25 20.80 20.85 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.28 23.71 23l1li 0.00 RESUlTS Nat Saq., -.cIRange 0.00 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00

(0) "InItolcolipooltiY8,natpreoll1l .0"_ofMIl

..lOw.go,1nltlalcool; " initialcoolnog_,lnIt.1IIVIngl/NPV ofMIl

..cool•. DATASET No.A-2(DOE-l) OO/21V\14Table A-4. No Oven Door Window, 4 Door Openings- -Self-Cleaning Oven

COST CALCULATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS At Calculations arsin Constant 1990 Doter. FuelCost8cenedo DOE, Realdankl, Ref. Case DIscount Rate (Reel) MODIFED RANGE Applanc. Ut., Veer, Merit Ll) froni Maiulsctudng Coat Added Installed Cost, $ 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malnianance Coat, S. NPV@ 8% 89.05 Malntanance Coat, S. NPV@ 6% Ga., Annual Cootdng Use, 1000 BUtyr 069 Ga., Annu.tCootdng U.., 1000 BUtyr FESULTS @0% DIsc. RI. Annuslzed Net 8ev. -0.02 $fyr 6.0% Bendt/Co.t(a) NA 19 mImI Rat. at Ratim NA 2.81 SImple Peybsck NA Net Enargy Saved -3 kBtu/yr Annuetzed GasSes. -0.02 S/yr 80.05 966 DISCOUNT RATE An Say, $ BR/Cit

Ct.., Non-Coolring PIlota, 1000 itsirr U GI, Non-Coolting PIlots, 1000 Btifyr 0 SENSITIVITY Gas, 8.11 Clean, 1000 Btu/yr, 4 Cycle. 173 0.., 8.8 Clean, 1000 Btu/yr, 4 Cycle. 173 Ga.,TotslUs.,l000Btu/yr 1,142 Gsa,TotatUa.,I000B*u/yr 1,130 GASCOST AnSav,$ BR/Cat Electricity, Annual Cooldng Use, kWr/yr 29.2 ElectrIcity, Annual Cooking U,., loMi/yr 20.2 SarsilMty 80% -0,02 NA ElectrIcity, Clock, I@h/yr 31.5 Electricity, Clock, lThArr 31.5 to Gas 120% -0.02 NA Electricity, Sell Clean, I/yr, 4 Cycles 0.7 ElectrIcity, Salt Clean, kWhlyr, 4 Cycle. 0.7 Cost Electricity, Total, kWh/yr 81.5 ElectrIcity, Total, kWh/yr 61.5 APPUANCE UFE An Say, $ BR/Cat Enargy, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000Btu 1,069 Energy, AnnuelCooldng Use, l0008tu/yr 1,066 Cooking Eltlclancy 1.11% Cooldng EIfld.ncy 7.13% Seislllvtty -2 -0.02 NA Energy, Total Annual Use, 1000 Otu/yr 1,351 Enargy, Total Annual (i.e 1000 Btu4mr 1,349 to Yr.. Ui. 2 -0.02 NA Energy Foctor 5.63% Energy Feclor 5.04% Change

Year 1907 1908 1900 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2000 2010 2Ott Sansltlvlty 2.0% -0.02 NA to Dloc'nt 7.0% -0.02 NA Rat, 15.0% -0.02 NA

FIRST COST An 8ev, $ BR/Cat SmsltMty 75% -0.02 NA to FIrst 85% -0.02 NA Cost 120% -0.02 NA

150% -0.02 NA GAS QUANTITY An 5ev, $ BR/Cat SonsltMty 80% -0.02 • NA toMiount 125% -0.02 NA 01 Ga., 150% -0.03 NA Bes.8, t65% -0.03 NA ModIfIed 215% -0.04 NA

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20t7 C' MODIFIED RANGE Instated Cost, Addtlanal 0.00 Malnt.,anc. Cost 0.00 1.82 1.62 1.62 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.10 5.01 6.10 10.47 13.85 15.03 tOll 20.03 22.30 23.21 24,57 24.57 0.00 Annual Nat.rrat 0.. Cost 7.15 7.34 7.53 7.85 7.77 7.89 8.01 8.14 8.28 8.42 8.57 8.72 8.87 9.03 9.19 9.35 0.52 0.80 0.81 0.00 AnnualElactdcltyCost 4.90 4.94 4.98 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.16 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.61 5.63 5.65 5.88 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00 TotelCo.ts 0.00 12.05 14.10 14.33 14.50 14.67 14,84 15.01 18.58 18.59 21.90 24.40 27.90 30.40 33.77 35.77 37.32 38.42 39.98 40.12 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE MalnlanceCo.t 0.00 1.82 1.62 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.tO 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.65 15.03 10.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 MnualN.trralG.sCost 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.63 7.75 7.87 8.00 8.t2 8.28 8.40 8.55 8.70 8.65 9.00 9.17 0.33 0.50 o:ei 9.70 0.00 AnnuelElectllclty Cost 4.90 4.94 4.98 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.t8 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.6t 5.63 5.65 5.88 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00 TotalCoats 12.03 14.08 14.32 14.48 14.85 14.82 15.00 18.54 18.57 21.07 24.47 27.85 30.38 33.74 35.75 31.30 35.40 39.96 40.00 0.00 lESl.LTS NetSa4ngs,ModIt.dRang. 0.00 -0,02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 '0.02 '-0,02 -0.02 0.02 '-0,02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 (a) tilnllal cost posItive, net presert vakre of future aa'.lng./Inltl.lcoat; It Initial co.tnegMlve, lnlllal e.vlngafNPV ot luturecosta. DATA SET No. A-4 (DOE-I) 00(28/04 TableA-4. No Oven DoorWindow, 4Door Openings- -Self-CleaningOven

COST CALCUlATION DOUARS ASSUMPTIONS RESUlTS @5%llIoe. Rt An ColcuIoUon

....In Conltonl 1990DoRa

... Fuel Coat**Scen.~o** DOE. Raold.,tal. Rat. Ca.o AnnualzedNet Sa •. -0.02Styr DISCOUNT RATE AnSa•• S Bll/Cit Dlocount Ral.**(Raa~** 8.0% Bene1lt/Colt(a) NA MODIFIED RANGE Applance llIIt.Y

..... 18 Int.,1 Rat.01 Ra\Jm NA SenaltMty 2.0% -0.02 NA MarkUp from ManutlClurlng Coat 2.81 Simple PoyblCk NA 10 llIoc'nt 7.0'" -0.02 NA Added Inlta_Coat. S 0.00 NetEnergySaved -3 kBtutyr Rate 15.0% -0.02 NA BASE CASE RANGE Annualzed GalSav. -0.02 Styr
Maintenance Coat. S. NPV@ 8'" 88.05 Malnlenonce Coat. S. NPV@ 8'" 89.05 FIRST COST An So •• S Bll/Cit ao•• AnnUlI Cooldngu.... 1000BlJtyr 1188 a •••Annu.ICooIOngu.... l000BlJtyr IMI8 Ga•• Non-Cooking PII,"•• 1000BlJtyr 0 G•••Non-CooIOng PlkII•• 1000BlJtyr 0 SENSITIVITY Son"ItMty 75'" -0.02 NA Ga•• SI.Clton. 1000Blutyr. 4 Cyc:1oo 173 a •••S••Clton. 1000Blutyr. 4 Cyc:1oo 173 10Rm 85'" -0.02 NA a •••ToIII u.e. l000Btutyr 1.142 al ••ToIIIu.... 1000Blutyr 1.139 GAS COST AnS•••S Bll/Cit Coat 120% -0.02 NA 150% -0.02 NA EIoctIk:lty.lnnualCooldngu.... _tyr 29.2 EIoctIk:lty.lnnualCooldngu.... _tyr 29.2 SonolUvIty 80% -0.02 NA Eloctoldty. Clock, Wihtyr 31.5 EIoctoldty. Clock, Wihtyr 31.5 10Ga. 120'" -0.02 NA GAS QUANTITY An So •• S Bll/Cit EIoctIk:lty. SI.Clton.kWh/yr. 4 Cyc:1oo 0.7 EIoctIk:lty. S••Clton. kWh/yr. 4 Cyc:1oo 0.7 Coat EIoctIk:lty. Totll. Wihtyr 81.5 EIoctIk:lty. Totll. kWhtyr n5 SonoltMty 80% -0.02 • NA APPUANCE UFE An So •• S Bll/Cit toAmount 125'" -0.02 NA Enlrgy.Innu.1Cooldngu.... 1000Bluh 1.088 Enlrgy. 1nnu.1Cooldngu.... 1000Blutyr 1.088 ofGal. 150% -0.03 NA Cooking Elllclenc:y 7.1'''' Cooldng Elllclenc:y 7.13'" SonolUvlty -2 -0.02 NA BUIa. 185'" -0.03 NA Energy. ToI.l

.......u.1u.e. 1000 Blutyr 1.351 Enlrgy.Tot.11nnu01u.... 1000Blutyr 1.348 toYra. llIIt 2 -0.02 NA Modlned 215'" -0.04 NA EnlrgyFoctor 5.83'" EnergyFoctor 5.84'" Chan8"

Y ••r 1887 1888 

# ,- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 

## » I 0'1 MODIFIED RANGE Inltallod Coat.AddtIonol 0.00 Malnt.,ancl Coat 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.10 5.01 8.18 10.47 13.85 15.83 10.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annuol NI"rllGa.Coat 7.15 7.34 7.53 7.85 7.71 7.88 8.01 8.14 8.28 8.42 8.57 8.72 U7 0.03 0.10 9.35 0.52 0.80 0.81 0.00 AnnulIEIoctIk:lty Coat 4.00 4.04 4.08 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5,45 5.53 5.81 5.83 5.85 5.l1li 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

TotalCooII 0.00 12.05 14.10 14,33 14.50 14.117 14.84 15.01 lUll 18.58 21.88 24,40 27.00 30.40 33.71 35.77 37.32 38.42 30.08 40.12 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malntenancl Coat 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.10 5.01 8.10 10.47 13.85 15.03 10.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annu.1NalJr.1G••Colt 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.83 7.75 7.87 8.00 11.12 11.211 11.40 8.55 11.70 U5 0.00 8.17 0.33 0.50 0:87 0.70 0.00 Annu.1EIoctIk:lty Coat 4.00 4.04 4.08 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.111 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.81 5.83 5.85 5.l1li 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

TotalCooIi 12.03 14.08 14.32 14,48 14.85 14.82 15.00 111.54 111.57 2U7 24,47 27.l1li 30.38 33.74 35.75 37.30 38.40 39.011 40.00 0.00 RESUlTS Net Saving•• ModHIed Rango 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.00

(a) nlnllalcoatpOlltlve.netp
....,t

### .0". 0I1utu

... aYlngll1nltlolcool;NlnItIolcootneg_.lnllaIIlYlngojNPVoIluturoco.t •. DATASET No.A-4(DOE-l) O8/2tVMTable A-5. Standing Pilots Replaced with Electronic Ignition, Existing Outlet- -Cooktop

- COST CALCULATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS RSSULTS @8% DIsc. RI.
AM Calouletlons rshi Constant 1990 Dollars FLisi Cost Bccnaulo DOE, Realdanlel, Ref. Cu. Annusfeed Net 8ev. 5.14 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 8ev $ BS/Cst DIscount Rate (Re9 6.0% Ben.fttlCost(e) 4.13 MODIFED RANGE Applenc. life, Years 10 rtml Rat. of Rebm 65.7% SmsItI4ty 2.0% 4.19 4.58 Marftl.fromManufsctudngCost 2.81 SlmplePaybsck 2.Syeecs toDlscnl 7.0% 5.33 4.01 AddhnteTledCos1,$ 16.34 NatEnergySeved 2,O5OkStu/yr Rate 15.0% 0.21 3.10 BASE CASE RANGE Annuslz.d Gas 8ev. 14.76 S/yr Ustnterance Cost, $, NPV@ 6% 89.05 Malntanance CostS, NPV@ 6% 0.00 FiRST COST An 5ev, $ Ott/Cat Gas, AnnustCooldng lies, 1000Gb/yr 1,092 Gas, Mnuil Cooldng Us., 100005,/yr . 1,092 Gas, Non-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 Bb/yr 0 Gsa, Ncn-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 OSi/yr 2,050 SENSITIVITY SmsIIMty 15% 5.55 5.50 to First 05% 5.39 4.88 Gas,Tot.t Us., l0006tu/yr 1,092 Gss,Totel Us., l000Blu/yr 3,142 GAS COST An 8ev, S BIt/Cat Coal 120% 4,61 3.44 150% 4.32 2.75 SansIIfvlty 80% 2,19 2.33 to Gas 120% 8.09 5.92 GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, 5 OIl/Cat Cost Sai sliMly 60% 2.19 2.33 APPUANCE liFE An 8ev, $ Bit/Cat to Anmunl 125% 8.63 0.37 Energy, MnuatCooldng Use, 1000Btu/ 1,092 Energy, PnnuelCooldng Use, l000Blu/yr 1,092 of Gas, 150% 12.52 8.02 Cooldng Eltlclsncy 39.90% Cootdng EtMclsncy 39.90% 8&i sliMly -2 5.93 4.39 Base & 105% 14.74 9.97 Energy, Total Annual Use, 1000 Btu/yr 1,092 Energy. Total Annual Use, 1000 alu/yr 3,142 tovra. LII. 2 4.53 3.91 Modltled 215% 22.12 14,46 Energy Fsctor 39.90% Energy Fsctor 13.86% Change

Year 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Cost, Addttonal 18,34 MatntananceCost 0.00 1.82 1.62 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.19 5.01 8.19 10,47 13.65 15.93 10.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnuelNebratGssCost 683 7.01 7.20 1.31 7.43 1.54 1.06 7.78 7.92 8.05 8.19 633 8.48 8.03 8.78 6.94 9.10 9.27 9.38 0.00 AnnualEI.ct4cIty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotelCosts 18,34 8.83 8.83 9.02 9.13 9.25 9.36 9.48 tOO? 12.92 16.24 18.66 21.98 24.40 27.74 29.71 31.24 32.31 33.84 33.95 0.00
BASE CASE RANGE U*tterance Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNabralGasCoal 19.61 20.19 20.72 21.05 21.38 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.18 23.58 23.98 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 26.20 26.87 26.99 0.00 Annual Elact$dty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotelCoita 10.87 20.19 20.72 21.05 21.38 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.16 23.58 23.98 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 26.20 26.87 26.99 0.00
FESULTS Net8avlngs,ModlltedRangs -18.34 12.83 11.35 11.70 11.91 12.13 12.35 12.57 11.43 9.86 6.93 4.92 2.00 -0.01 -2.90 -4.43 -5,50 -6,11 -7.17 -6.96 0.00 net prssant vakie at tuture aavlngsflnhltalco.t; If lnltlalco.tnegattve, hillel sailngs/NPV of futurscosts. DATA SET No. 0-10 (DOE-2) 06/26194 (a) If Inlialcost positive TableA-5. StandingPilots Replacedwith ElectronicIgnition, Existing Outlet- -Cooktop

COST CALCUlATION OOUARS ASSUMPTIONS**~SUlTS** @ 8%OIoc. RI. Al! CIIt:llIIIUon

....In Conat.." IIHIO DoIIII

.. Fuel ColI**ScenI~O** DOE. _d

..... I. ReI. C

... Annu

.... d NOI Sov. 5.14 Styr DISCOUNT RA.TE MSOV.S Bft/Cat OI0c0unI RIlelReaQ 8.11"4 Blnellt/COlll·) 4.13 MOOIFlED RA.NGE Appl""""UIe. Y.I

.. 10 Inlml Ral.01 Rellm 85.7'" S

.. ,.ltMIy 2.11"4 4.10 4.58 MarkUp !rom MonuIlICIurtng ColI 2.81 SimplePaybs:k 2.S y.... 10 OIoc'nl 7.11"4 5.33 4.01 Addad Inatilled ColI. S 18.34 NOI En.rgyS.VId 2.050kBlutyr Ral. 1S.11"4 8.21 3.10 BASE CASE RA.NGE AnnualZad G

..SI •. 14.78$ty,
Malntananc. ColI. $. NPV@ 8'" 80.05 Malnlan"""" ColI. S. NPV@ 8% 0.00 RRSTCOST MSa •• S Bft/Cat GI•• AnnuliCooIIIn9 UII. 1000BlIty' 1.002 Ga••Annu.1CooIIIn9 UII. 1000BlItyr 1.002 GI•• Non-Cooking Pilot•• 1000BlIty, 0 GI••Non-CooIIIn9 Pilot•• 1000BlIty, 2.050 SENSITMTY Smo/Uvily 75'" 5.55 S.5O loAm 85'" 5.30 4.1111 Ga••ToIIl UII. l000Bluty, 1.002 Go••Total UII. l000Blutyr 3.142 GAS COST MSIV.S Bft/Cat Coat 120% 4.81 3.44 150% 4.32 2.75 S..,oIUvlly 110'" 2.10 2.33 toG•• 120% 8.09 5.112 GAS QUANTITY MSav.S Bft/Cat CoOl S..,oiUvily 8D"4 2.18 2.33 APPUANCE UFE MSI'.S Bft/Cat 10Amounl 125'" 8.83 8.37 Ener;y. InnuIICooking Use. 1000BIu/l 1.092 Eoor;y. InnualCooking UII. 1000Blutyr 1,002 01 G••• 150% 12.52 8.82 CooIdng Elllcloncy 38.90'" Cooking EIIIcIoncy 38._ SanolUvily -2 5.83 4.38 B

...& 18S'" 14.74 8.87 Eoor;y.Totlllnnu.1UII, 1000Bluty' 1.002 Eoor;y.ToIallnnullUII. 1000Bluty' 3,142 loY

...UIe 2 4.53 3.01 Modillad 21S'" 22.12 14.48 Enlr;yFoetor 38._ Eno<gy Foetor 13.811'" Chang.

Y

..

, 1007 I- I- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200Il 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 

## > I ....J
MOOIFlED RA.NGE Inatilled ColI,AcIcIIlonal 18.34 Malnl

......,.ColI 0.00 1.82 U2 1.112 1.112 1.82 1.112 3.18 S.01 8.18 10.47 13.85 15.83 18.11 20.83 22.30 23.21 24.S7 24.57 0.00 Annuli NIlI'"Ga.ColI 8.83 7.01 7.20 7.31 7.43 7.54 7.811 7.78 7.112 8.05 8.18 8.33 8.48 8.83 8.78 8.84 8.10 8.27 8.38 0.00 AnnualElocIoIcIIy ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TotalCoab 18.34 8.83 8.83 8.02 8.13 8.25 8.311 8.48 10.87 12.112 18.24 18.811 21.88 24.40 27.74 28.71 31.24 32.31 33.84 33.85 0.00
BASE CASE RA.NGE Malntananca ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnuliNIlIr.1 GI.ColI 18.87 20.18 20.72 21.05 21.311 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.18 23.58 23.88 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 28.20 28.87 28.00 0.00 AnnuliElocIoIcIIy ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TotilCoab 18.87 20.18 20.72 21.05 21.311 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.18 23.58 23.88 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 28.20 28.87 28.00 0.00**~BUlTB** NOI SavIngt, ModHIad Ranga -18.34 12.83 11.35 11.70 lUI 12.13 12.3S 12.S7 11.43 8.811 8.83 4.112 2.00 -0.01 -2.80 -4.43 -S.5O -8.11 -7.17 -8.88 0.00

la) MlnllllcoOI poo/UW,nOlpl8IBn1

### .a"" 01 lulu

... lvlngl/lnlllalcool;HlnIIIalcooln"llIlllve.InI'alllvingI/NPVoIlu1u

..cOOb. DATA SET No. B-l0lDOE-2) 0II!21!/94Table A-6. Standing Pilots Replaced with Electronic Ignition, 1/2 New Outlet Cost- -Cooktop

COST CALCULATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS FESULTS @6% DIsc RI. AS C ulallon, areln Conslant 1990 Dollars Fuel Cost 8cenao DOE, R.aldIaI, Rat. Case Annuafzed Net 8ev. 1.11 S/yr DIscount Rate (R.a 6.0% Benett/Cost(C) 119 MODIFIED RANGE Applanc. Ut., Year. 19 Intinl Retool Return 11.7% Mark L from Manufscturlng Cost 2.81 SImple Paybsck 6.3 year. Added Installed COst, $ 63.33 Not Energy Saved 2,050 kBIu/yr BASE CASE RANGE Annualzed Gas Say. 14.76 S/yr MaIntenance Coal, S. NPV@ 6% 89.05 MaIntenance Coat, S. NPV@ 6% 0.00 Gas, MnualCooldng Ui., 1000 BtJ/yr 1,092 Gas, Annual Ccotdng Use, 10008W/yr 1,092 Gas, Non-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 BU/yr 0 Gas, Non-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 8W/yr 2,050 SENSITMTY Gas, Total Us., 1000 Blu/yr 1,092 0.,, Total Use, 1000 8W/yr 3,142 GAS COST An Say, $ Bit/Cat Senaltldly 80% -1.85 0.67 to Gas 120% 4.08 1.72 Cost APPUANCE UFE An 8ev, S Bit/Cat Energy, Annuat Cooldng Us., 1000 Blu 1,092 Energy, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 8W/yr 1,092 Cooking Ef9dency 39.90% Cooldng Efdeocy 39.90% SeisltI1ty -2 1.64 1.27 Energy,TotalknustUs.,lO00Btu/yr 1,092 Energy,TotalMnualus.,lO00Btu/yr 3,142 toYrs.Ule 2 0.71 1.13 Energy Fsctor 39.90% Energy Fsctor 13.86% Changs

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 DISCOUNT RATE An 8ev, S Bit/Cat SalsltMty 2.0% 1.32 1.33 toDlac'nl 7.0% 0.98 1.18 Rate 15.0% -1.05 0.90

FIRST COST An Say, S Bit/Cat SanittMty 75% 2.53 1.59 toRrsl 65% 1.96 1.41 Cost 120% -0.03 1.00

150% -1.73 0.80 GAS QUANTITY An Say, S Bit/Cat SensItIvity 60% -1.85 0.67 toAinount 125% 4.80 1.85 of Gas, 150% 8.49 2.50 Ease& 165% 10.70 2.89 ModItled 215% 18.08 4.19

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 00 MODIFIED RANGE Installed Cost, AddItional 63.33 MalntenancsCost 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.65 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annual Natural Gas Cost 6.83 7.01 1.20 1.31 7.43 7.54 1.66 1.78 7.92 8.05 8.19 8.33 8.48 6.63 8.78 8.94 9.10 9.27 9.38 0.00 Annual Elacttlclty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TofalCo.t. 63.33 6.83 8.83 9.02 9.13 9.25 9.38 9.48 10.97 12.92 16.24 18.66 21,98 24.40 27.74 29.71 31,24 32.31 33.84 33.95 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Maintenance Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MnuatNatjral0ssCost 19.67 20.19 20.72 21.05 21.38 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.18 23.58 23.98 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 26.20 26.67 28.09 0.00 Annual El.cntclty Coil 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCost. 19.67 20.10 20.72 21.05 21.38 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.18 23.58 23.98 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 26.20 28.67 28.99 0.00 FESULT8 NetSavings, Modlfed Range -63.33 12.63 11.35 11.70 11.91 12.13 12.35 12.57 11.43 9.86 6.93 4.92 2.00 -0.01 -2.90 -4.43 -5.50 -6.11 -7.17 -6.96 0.00 (a) If Inlialcoet posItIve, net present value of future aavingaflrtltlltcost; It Inltlalco.tn.gdIlve, Inhtal sailngsfNPv of future coal. DATA SET No. B-Il (DCE- O6/294 TableA-6. StandingPilots Replacedwith ElectronicIgnition, 1/2 New Outlet Cost--Cooktop

COST CALCUlATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS RESULTS @S%Dloc. FII.
AI COlculaUonl oreln Conotan! 11190Dona

.. Fuel Coot Sc."odo DOE, _denlol, f\of. Ca•• Annualzed NetSo •. 1.11 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An Sa., S BftICot Dlocoun1 Rale**(Re.~** 6.0% Benonl/Coot(0) 1.19 MODIFIED RANGE Appl"""a UIe, V

.... 10 Inlml Rale01 f\ofum 11.7% SenolUvtIy 2.0% 1.32 1.33 MI"'l%> from**MIInUIEIu~ng** Coot 2.81 SimplePaybEk 6.3 ya
... 10 Dloc'nl 7.0% 0.98 1.18 Added Inotallod Coot, S 63.33 Nol Energy Saved 2,050 kBlu/yr Rale 15.0% -1.05 0.90 BASE CASE RANGE AnnualzedGao So •. 14.75$1'1'
MoIntenanco Cool, S, NPV @ 8% 89.05 MllnlenanceCoot, S, NPV @ s% 0.00 FIRST COST An Sa.,S BftICot a
.. ,AnnUliCooking U

.. , 1000BlJ/yr 1,092 00',AnnualCooking U.a, 1000BlJ/yr 1,092 a
.. ,Non-Cooking Pilot., 1000BlJ/yr 0 a ••,Non-CookIng Pilot., 1000BlJ/yr 2,050 SENSITMTY SenolUvtIy 75% 2.53 1.59 10Flm 85% 1.l1li 1.41 a
.. ,Totol Uoo, loooBlu/yr 1,092 a ••,Totol Uoo, loooBlu/yr 3,142 GAS COST An SI., S BftICot Coot 120% -0.03 1.00 150% -1.73 0.80 Sen.ItMty 80% -1.85 0.87 loG

.. 120% 4.DIi 1.72 GAS QUANTITY An Sa., S BftICot Cool Senolttvtly 80% -1.85 0.87 APPUNICE UFE An SO" S BftICot lomounl 125% 4.80 1.85 Enorgy,lnnullCooking Uoo,loooBlut\ 1,092 Enargy,lnnualCooking U.a,loooBlu/yr 1,092 01 G•• , 150% 8.40 2.50 CookIng Elllcfency 30.90% Cooking Elllcfency 30.90% SenlltlYiIy -2 1.84 1.27 8o.a& 185% 10.70 2.80 Energy,TotallnnualUoo, 1000BIu/yr 1,092 Energy,Tot_llnnuolUoo, 1000BIu/yr 3,142 10V

... UIe 2 0.71 1.13 ModItIed 215% 18.08 4.10 EnorgyFactor 39.90% EnorgyFactor 13.88% Chang.

V ••

r 1997 

# I-

I_ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200S 2007 2008 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 )- f 00
MODIFIED RANGE Inotollod Coot, _II 53.33 Malnlenance Coot 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.10 5.01 8.10 10.47 13.85 15.93 10.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annu.1Noll'ol00'Coot 11.53 7.01 7.20 7.31 7.43 7.54 7.88 7.78 7.92 8.05 8.10 8.33 8.48 8.63 8.78 8.G4 11.10 0.27 0.38 0.00 AnnualEIoctIlctty Coot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tot.ICoot. 63.33 11.83 8.53 0.02 0.13 0.25 0.38 0.4S 10.07 12.92 18.24 18.88 21.08 24.40 27.74 211.71 31.24 32.31 33.84 33.95 0.00
BASE CASE RANaE MaintenanceCoot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annu_1 Nollrel aa.Coot 10.87 20.111 20.72 21.05 21.38 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.18 23.58 23.08 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 211.20 211.87 211.99 0.00 AnnualEIoctIlctty Coot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tot.ICooII 111.87 20.111 20.72 21.05 21.38 21.71 22.05 22.40 22.78 23.18 23.58 23.98 24.40 24.84 25.28 25.74 211.20 211.87 211.99 0.00
RESULTS NetSlvtng., ModItIed Rang. -63.33 12.83 11.35 11.70 l1.Gl 12.13 12.35 12.57 11.43 0.88 8.93 4.92 2.00 -0.01 -2.90 -4.43 -5.50 -6.11 -7.17 -8.l1li 0.00

(a) Hlnllalcollp_,netpre.ent .aklo01 fUture IIYlngo,1nltlolcool;HlnIItolcoolnog_,lnIlolaoYlngl/NPV01 fUture coot•. DATASET NO.8-II (DOE-2)**08!2~4**I mmom G) GQ U U 

### -4W 

# p

• --I a. ) & U gge.ao 3. if 

# ii I § ; 3.

• m! z

- -

; o.0

-- 82 mmom 0 00 Ql - J_ U 0e 001- 89

-.

- 

### § b

- p. p.) M 00 04-' 88 Cu 

### §

m

Cu 3 ø01- Cu

. 

# -: C, 889

NoSo o-.acu Cu Cu - 0 P.) 88 §8 !

Cu 0P0 MO4CJC

88 82 _____________________________

00 0ICu 8;s 8a -I

m - C 00 

### q g .2

. C)
Cu Cu P.) oo !oc, Cu 8 I Cu Cu CuP.)

$ P.) Cu C') - II Cu Cu -Cu 0 00 OCu C.ICu U 01CC Cu oru Cu 0 -'(CC p. Cu4 Cu 9 82 8°

- a

Cu Cu Cu - Cu OO .40CuCu 00 0 8 88 j. Ioo 0Cu

- 88

. CuCu Cu

____________________________

JC

C') Cu

0 CuOCuCu 888 !$! a C) -4 -4- !4 Cu Cu Cu''' OC4Cu

o CuOCu Cu Cu Cu'.)

oo Cu I Cu III ill Cu CuOUC -.)Cu - -

a -ICuCuCu a

0 0000 0000 Cu-"0 0000 000 4 no C 2 8822 8g9s

- C,,

C C,)

C.,



### 6-VTableA-7.StandingPilotsReplacedwithElectronicIgnition,NewOutlet--CooktopCOSTCAlCUlATIONDOLlARSASSUMPTIONSRESUlTS@O%OIoc.RI.AICOt:ulatlonl...InConllonttIKIO00"",.FuolCottDOE,_onlal,Ref.C...Annua!zedNilSo•.-2.112Sly,DISCOUNTRATEAnSa.,$Bft/CIIOIocountRIlle0.0%Beneftl/COll(a)0.70MODIFIEDRANGEApplonceUfo,V....18InlmlRIIt.oIRetlmNASonliUvIty2.0%-1.550.78MerkfromMonuIlCIuringCott2.81SimplePayblCk27.1y••,.toOIoc'nt7.0%-3.370.08AddedInllolledCott,S108.25NilEnorgyS.Ved2,050kBluly'RIIt.15.0%-0.210.53BASECASERANGEAnnualzedGilSI•.14.7HlyrMalnlononceCott,S,NPV@8%89.05Malntononc:eCott,S,NPV@8%0.00FIRSTCOSTAnSa.,$Bft/CIIG..,AnnualCooIcIngl.IIe,1000BlJlyr1,0112G••,AnnuliCooking1JIa,1000BlJlyr1,0112G••,Non-CookingPlIotI,1000BlJIy'0G••,Non-CookIngPilot.,1000BlJIy'2,050SENSITMTYSonoltMty75%-0.490.9310Rm85%-1.400.82G..,ToIol1JIa,l000BluIy'1,0112G••,Tolal1JIa,l000Blu/y'3,142GASCOSTAnSO"SBft/CIICott120%-4.800.58150%-7.770.47SonoltMty80%-5.870.39loGo.120%0.031.00GABQUANTITYAnSo.,SBft/CIICottSonoltMty80%-5.070.38APPLWICEUFEAnSa.,SBft/CIItoAmount125%0.771.08Energy,1Mu.1Cooking1JIa,1000Btu/j1,0112Energy,lMualCooking1JIa,1000Btulyr1,0112of0."150%4.401.40CooIcIngEfllcloncy39._CookingEfIIcIoncy39._SonoltMty-2-2.850.74Sa..&105%0.081.09Energy,ToIollMual1JIa,1000Btuly'1,0112Energy,ToIollMu011JIa,1000Btuly'3,142toVro.Ufo2-3.110.08ModIfted215%14.082.45EnergyFlClor39._EnergyFlCtor13.88%ChongoVH'1007I-I-2000z00120022003200420052008z0072008200II20102011ZOl2Z013Z014Z01520102017>I\0MODIFIEDRANGE1n1l.1IedCott,Adelllon.1108.25Malnlonenc:oCott0.001.521.52U21.82U21.523.185.018.1010.47 13.85 15.0310.11ZO.0322.3023.2124.5724.570.00Annu.1No",.10..CottU37.017.ZO7.317.43 7.547.08 7.787.1128.058.108.338.48 8.838.700.D40.10 0.270.380.00AnnuliElectlldlyCott0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ToIalColto108.258.83 8.830.020.1311.250.3811.4810.0712.11210.24 10.0821.11824.4027.7421.7131.2432.3133.0433.1150.00BASECASERANGEMalnlonenc:.Cott0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 0.000.000.00Annu.1No"'11GuCott11.87ZO.18 ZO.7221.0521.3821.7122.0522.4022.78 23.18 23.5823.11824.4024.8425.2825.7428.ZO28.8728.000.00AnnuliElectlldlyCott0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.000.00ToIaIColI.1l1.li7ZO.1"ZO.7221.0521.3821.7122.0522.4022.7823.1823.5823.11824.4024.8425.2825.7428.ZO28.8728.000.00RESUlTSNotSI'o1niII,ModIftedRango-108.2512.8311.3511.7011.0112.1312.3512.5711.430.08o.n4.1122.00-0.01-2.00-4.43 -5.50-0.11-7.17-0.080.00(a)"'"'IIIcotlp_,nllp....,t••klooIMu....vlngl/Wllolcoot;"lnItIolcoolneg_,lnIlal..vlngI/NPV01Mu..cooto.DATASETNo.B-llA(DOE-2)0III21W4Table A-8. Standing Pilots Replaced with Electronic Ignition, Existing Outlet- -Standard Oven

COST CA CULATION DOUARS ASSUMPTIONS I8UI.TS @ 0% DIsc. At. All CalculatIons irs In Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Cost Sc.na4o DOE, Resldatht, P,.l. Ca,. Annualzsd Nil Say. -2.09 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 8ev, $ BIt/Cit DIscount Rats (Raa 0.0% B.nalIl/Co,l(a) 0.31 MOCIFED RANGE Applance Ut., Vials 19 kitint Rat. of Refum NA Sonsittuly 2.0% -2.13 NA Markt.fronMeufdtudngCoat 2.81 SlmplaPaybsck 21.4yoaii toDtsc'nt 1.0% -1.98 0.39 Add.dlnstatlsdCoit,$ 33.89 NetEnsrgy8sv.d t,469k81u/yr Rats 15.0% -1.96 0.64 BASE CASE RANGE Annuatzed Gas Say. 11.44 S/yr Malnlsianc. Coat, 5, NPV @6% 89.05 Malntonance Cost, 5, NPV @ 6% 0.00 FiRST COST An Say, S BA/Cit Gas, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Bti/yr 1,204 Gas, Annual Cooldn9 Lisa, 1000 Btl/yr 1,284 Gaa,Non-CooldngPllots,l0000ti/yr 0 Gas,Non-CooldngPtlota,l0000b/yr 1,508 SENSITMTY Smsltkitty 75% -1.33 0.42 Gas, 8s8 Clean, 1000 Btu/yr, 0 CycIsa 0 Gas, 8.0 Clean, 1000 Blu/yr, 0 Cycls. 0 to First 05% -1,63 0.37 Gas,Totalua., l000Btu/yr 1,204 Gaa,Tdtal Us., l000eiu/yr 2,192 GAS COST An Say, $ BA/Cat Cost 120% -2.69 0.26 150% -3.61 0.21 Elactdclty, Annual Cooldng Use. lMki/yr 29.2 Sonsllntty 80% -4.31 NA EIactcIty, Clock, I&b/yr 0.0 to Gas 120% 0.20 1.07 GAS QUANTITY An Say, S BA/Cat EIectcIty, 5.8 Clean, lA'lh/yr. 0 Cycles 0.0 Cost EISCIIICIIY. Total, lATh/yr 29.2 8.1sftI$ty 80% -4.37 NA APPUANCE UFE An 8ev. 5 Sf1/Cat to Antount 125% 0.77 1.26 Ensrgy, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Ptu 1,304 En.rg Annual Cooldng U**, 1000 Etu/yr 1,284 of Gas, 150% 3.83 2.20 Cooldng EfOdency 5.83% 000tdng Eltldency 5.92% SonsltMty -2 -1.33 0.59 Base & 165% 5.35 2.76 Ensrgy, Total Annual Use, 1000 Btu/yr 1,304 Energy, Total Annual Us., 1000 Btu/yr 2,792 to Vt.. UI. 2 -2.67 0.07 Modlllsd 215% 11.07 4.64 Ensrgy Foctor 5.83% Energy Foclor • 2.72% Changs

Year 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Cost, Adottloral 33.89 Malnt.nanc.COst 0.00 1.62 1.82 1.82 1.62 1.82 1,82 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.41 13.65 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.51 24.57 0.00 Annual Natiral Gas Cost 7.54 1.74 7.94 8.07 8.19 8.32 8.45 8.58 8.73 8.58 9.03 9.19 9.35 9.52 9.69 9.60 10.04 10.22 10.34 0.00 Annual EI..ctcIty Coat 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.39 2.42 2.44 2.46 2.49 2.52 2.50 2.59 2.63 2.67 2.86 2.69 2.10 2.71 2.72 2.73 0.00 TotalCoala 33.89 9.81 11.91 12.13 12.28 12.43 12.58 12.74 14.28 16.26 19.63 22.09 25.47 27.94 31.31 33.31 34.86 35.96 37.51 37.84 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malnlanance Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNatiralGasCoat 11.48 11.94 18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.07 22.41 22.68 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 Annual ElactcIty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCost. 17.48 17.94 16.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.01 22.41 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 IESt.LT8 N.tsatfngs,Modltlsdflange -33.89 7.61 8.04 0.29 6.43 6.51 6.72 6.86 5.85 3.99 0.97 -1.14 -4.18 6.26 9.23 -10.84 11.98 12,67 13.81 13.65 0.00 (a) tlktlfalcosl posItIve, nut pr.sett vaUs of future saitngaflntdalccet; If InItial costnsgotivs, inhial sa*tgs/NPV of futur, costs. DATA SEF No. A-S (DOE-2) 06/2a'94 TableA-8. StandingPilots Replacedwith Electronic Ignition, Existing Outlet

- - Standard Oven

COST CAlCUlATION DOllARS ASSUMPTIONS RESUlTS @ 8%Dloc. RI.
AI C.IcuIaUon. a
..In Conllanl 11190 Dolla,. FullCost Scen._o DOE, _don'ai, Flat. C••• Annual.ad Not So •. -2.09Sty, DISCOUNT RATE An Sa.,S Bft/CII Dlocount RIll.**IRlla~** 11.0'lI0 Bonlftl/ColIla) 0.31 MODIFIED RANGE App'anceUIo, V

..

,. 18 Inlml Rale01 Rallm NA SonoltMty 2.0'lI0 -2.73 NA Mark4> Irom**ManullICIu~ng** Cost 2.81 SimplePaybllCk 21.4 yea
.. 10 Dlsc'nl 7.0% -1.88 0.38 AddedInllallad Cost, S 33.88 NotEnergySaYed 1,488kBtuty, RIll. 15.0% -1.1M! 0.84 BABE CASE RANGE AnnuII.ad Ga. SI •. 11.44Sty, Malnla",nc.Cost, S, NPV@II% 88.05 Moint.,anceCost, " NPV@ S'!Io 0.00 FIRST COST An Sa.,S Bft/C.,
a ••,AnnualCooking \Joe, 1000B\lty, 1,204 aa.,AnnuliCookIng Uta, 1000B\lty, 1,284 a •• , Non-Cooking Pilot., 1000B\lty, 0 a
.. , Non-CookInIl Pilot., 1000B\lty, 1,_ SENSITMTY SonlltMty 75% -1.33 0.42 G••,SefCII

.. , 1000Btuty" OCycIot 0 a ••, S.'CII

.. , 1000Btuty" 0 Cyclot 0 loR.., a5% -1.113 0.37 aa.,T 0111 \Joe, 1000Btuty, 1,204 aa.,TolalUte, 1000Btuty, 2,782 GAB COST AnSa., • Bft/CII Cost 120% -2.88 0.28 150'lI0 -3.81 0.21 Eloctilclty, InnualCookIng \Joe, kWhty' H.2 SonoilMty 80'lIo -4.37 NIl Eloctilclty, Clock, t(Nhty, 0.0 10 Ga. 120% 0.20 1.07 GAS QUANTITY AnSa., • Bft/CII Eloctilclty, S.'Cllan,t(Nhty" 0 Cyclot 0.0 Cost Eloctilclty,ToIal, t(Nh(yr H.2 SlIlsllMty 80% -4.37 NIl APPUANCE UFE An SaY,S Bft/CII 10 Amount 125% 0.77 1.25 Energy, InnualCooldng \Joe, 1000BtuJ\ 1,304 EnelllY, InnualCookIng Ute, 1000Btuty, 1,284 olGa., 150'lI0 3.83 2.20 Cooldng EIldGflC)' 5.83% CooldngEIftciGfIC)' 5._ SlIlsllMty -2 -1.33 0.58 ea
..& 185% 5.35 2.78 Energy, TolallnnualUte, 1000Btuty, 1,304 En_IllY, TolallnnualUte, 1000Btuty, 2,782 10V,.. UIo 2 -2.87 0.07 ModI1Iad 215% 11.07 4.84 EnelllYFaclor 5.83% EnergyFactor • 2.72% Change 

## » Yea, 18117 

# I_ I_

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 I 

# - 0 MODIFIED RANGE Inllallocl Cost, AddtJonal 33.8g Malnlenance Cost 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 U2 1.82 U2 3.111 5.01 8.18 10.47 13.85 15.83 10.11 20.83 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annual Nall,.1a ••Cost 7.54 7.74 7.04 8.07 8.18 8.32 8.45 8.58 8.73 8.88 8.03 11.18 U5 8.52 8.80 8.88 10.04 10.22 10.34 0.00 AnnuliEloctilcity Cost 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.30 2.42 2.44 2.48 2.48 2.52 2.58 2.58 2.83 2.87 2.88 2.88 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 0.00

ToIllCoII. 33.88 0.87 11.81 12.13 12.28 12.43 12.58 12.74 14.28 18.28 18.83 22.09 25.47 27.04 31.31 33.31 34.88 35.1M! 37.51 37.84 0.00
BABE CASE RANGE Malnlenance Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual Nall,.1 aa.Cost 17.48 17.04 18.42 18.71 10.00 18.30 18.80 18.81 20.25 20.80 20.05 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.H 23.71 23.811 0.00 AnnuelEloctilcity Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ToIelColII 17.48 17.04 18.42 18.71 111.00 18.30 18.80 111.111 20.25 20.80 20.05 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.H 23.71 23.811 0.00
RESUlTS NoISaql,_adAllng" -33.88 7.111 8.04 8.H 11.43 11.57 8.72 8.88 5.85 3.811 0.87 -1.14 -4.18 -8.28 -8.23 -10.84 -11.88 -12.87 -13.81 -13.85 0.00

la) HlnI'alcootpooItIve,notp_.au.01 futU

..**oaq~aICOlI;"** initialcoolnlll_,InI'.1 oaql/NPV01 futU

..cool•. DATA SET No. A-5lDOE-2) 08/21't'94Table A-9. Standing Pilots Replaced with Electronic Ignition, 1/2 New Outlet Cost--Standard Oven

COST CALCULATION DOU..ARS ASSUMPTIONS FE8ILTS @6% (DIsc. Rt. N CauIetIone scsI,, Constant 1990 Doter. Fuel Coal Scenario DOE. Paalder tat, Rat Cat. Annuatced Not 9ev. -612 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 8ev, $ BII/C,t DIscount Rat. (Roam 9.0% Bensttt/Cost(a) 0.13 MODIFiED RANGE Appuanc. Ut., Years 19 In(n,I Rate ol Retim NA S.tdtMly 2.0% -5.60 NA M.rkLfromManufscturingCost 2.81 SIrnpI.Paybsck Never IoDIscnt 7.0% -6.34 0.11 Add.dlnsletedCost,$ 78.69 NetEnergySeved l,469kB*u/yr Rate 15.0% -9.22 0.28 BASE CASE RANGE Annuatzed Ga. 8ev. 11.44 S/yr Malnterance Coal, 8, NPV @6% 69.05 Maintananca Coat, 8, NPV @ 8% 0.00 FIRST COST An 5ev, $ Ott/Cat Ge., Annual CookIng U.., 1000 BtI/yr 1,204 Ge., Annual CookIng Ut., 1000 Oti/yr 1,284 GaiN n-CooldngPlIot.,I0008IJ/yr 0 Gea,Non-COOIdngPlIot.,l000BtI/yr 1,508 SENSITMTY BanslIMly 75% -4.35 0.16 Ge.,BeIICIe.n,l0008tu/yr,OCyclos 0 Oee,8dCIsen,l000Blu/yr,OCyclee 0 loRrst 85% -5.09 0.16 Gee, Total U.., 1000 Otu/yr 1,204 Gee, Total Ut., 1000 Blu/yr 2792 GAS COST An 5ev, S Oft/Cal Coat 120% -7.53 0.11 150% -9.85 0.09 ElectricIty, nnualCootdng Use, IAMi/yr 29.2 BanallIvity 80% -8.41 NA Electricity, ClocIç kWh/yr 0,0 to Gas 120% -3.83 0.46 GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, S 8th/Cat Electricity, 8.6 Clean, kWh/yr, 0 Cycles 0.0 Coil Electricity, Total, Wilt/yr 29.2 SatatuvIty 80% -6.41 NA APPLIANCE UFE An 8ev, $ 86/Cat toAntount 125% -3.26 0.54 Energy, Mnuel CookIng U.., 1000 8lu 1304 Energy, Mnuel CookIng Us., 1000 OtU/yr 1,284 of Gee, 150% -0.40 0.04 Cooling Ettciency 5.83% Cooling Et8dcncy 8.92% Bursltlvtty -2 -5.62 0.25 Bes.& 185% 1.32 1.19 Energy, Total rnual U.., 1000 Btu/yr 1304 Energy. Total ftatnuel U.., 1000 Btu/yr 2,702 tO Yr.. Ut. 2 -650 0.03 ModIIt.d 215% 7.04 2.00 Energy Fector 5.63% Energy Fector 2.72% Ctteng.

Year 1997 1098 1000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Instated Coal, Addttcn.l 76.89 UalntanancCo.t 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.62 1.82 1.62 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.65 15.93 19.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.51 24.51 0.00 AnrrualNakjralGeeCost 7.54 7,74 7.94 8.07 8.19 8.32 6.45 6.58 8.73 6.68 9.03 0.19 9.35 9.52 9.69 0.60 10.04 10.22 10.34 0.00 Annual Electricity Coal 2.33 2.35 2.31 2.39 2.42 2.44 2.46 2.49 2.52 2.56 2.59 2.63 2.61 2.68 2.69 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 0.00 101.100.1. 78.60 0.67 11.01 12.13 12.26 12.43 12.58 12.74 14.26 16.26 19.63 22.00 25.47 21.04 31.31 33.31 34.86 35.06 37.51 37.64 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malnturanco Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nw,uaIN.krrelG.sCoat 17.46 17.04 18.42 18.71 19.00 ¶9.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.01 22.41 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 AnnuelElsctric$tyCoat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lotalCoat. 17.46 11.04 16.42 16.71 19.00 ¶9.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20,95 21.32 21.68 22.01 22.47 22.86 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 I'€BULTS Nel8evlnga,Moott.dRcnga -78.69 7.61 8.04 8.29 6.43 6.57 6.72 6.66 5.65 3.99 0.97 -1.14 -4.16 -6,26 -9.23 -10.64 -11.96 -12.67 -13.61 -13.65 0.00 (a) If Inllelcoet posItIve, net pr.sant vakia ottuture savtngsilnttlalco.t; If InitIal co.tn.gaitve, Intlal eav$ngs/NPV 04 tutur.cost.. DATA SET No. A-8 (DOE-2) 03/26/04 Table A-9. StandingPilots Replacedwith Electronic Ignition, 1/2 New Outlet Cost- -StandardOven

COST CAlCUlATION DOllARS ASSUMPTIONS RESUlTS @8% Dloc. AI. Al! Calculation'

...In Canll,,", 11190 00110,. 

### Fu., Cool _ado DOE, ReoIdfn'"I, ReI. ca
.. Annualzad NtII Sav. -812SlYr DISCOUNT AATE MSav,S Bft/CII Dlocounl Rot.**(Rel~** 8.0% BenetltJCoII(.) 0.13 MODtFlED AANGE Applonco 1JIe, Y.I" 18 1n1.,1 Rollo of Re"m NA afnllllll1ty 2.0% -5.80 NA Mork**~** 110m MonufllCluring Cool 2.81 SImple PayblCk Novar 10 DllC'nl 7.0% -8.34 0.17 Addad InllllledCool, S 78.80 NtII Enor;ySaved 1,488 kBlulYr Roll. 15.0% -9.22 0.28 BASE CASE RANGE Annualzad G•• SlY. 11.44 SlY' Malntfnonco Cool, $, NPV@ 8% 88.05 Malnlfn....,.Cool, S, NPV@ 8% 0.00 FIRST COST MSav,S Bft/CII GI.,AnnulICooIdng u.., 1000BIlJ/'ir 1,204 GI.,AnnulICooking u.., 1000BIlJ/'ir 1,284 Ga.,Hon-Cooklng PIlot., 1000BIlJ/'ir 0 GI.,Hon-Cooldng PIlot., 1000BIlJ/'ir 1,508 SENSn-MTY Sfnllll'ol1ly 75% -4.35 0.18 G••,So.CIe

..., 1000Btu/'ir,0 eye

... 0 G••, a.,Clean, 1000Btu/'ir,0 eye

... 0 loRm 85% -5.08 0.18 GI.,Tot.1u.., lOOOBtu/'i' 1,204 G•• ,Totllu.., loooBtu/yr 2,702 GAS COST MalV,S Bft/CII Cool 120% -7.53 0.11 150% -8.85 0.09 EIectIlclt}',"""""ICooking u'a,-Wr 211.2 SfnoltMly 80% -8.41 HA Electlicit}', Clock, 1<WI1IY' 0.0 loG•• 120% -3.83 0.48 GAS QUANTITY MSav,S Bft/CI1 Electlicit}', allClean,l<WI1IYr, 0 eye

... 0.0 Cool Electlicit}', Total, kWh/'ir 211.2 Sfnllllll1ty 80% -8.41 NA APPlIANCE UFE MSIV,S Bft/CII loAmounl 125% -3.28 0.84 Enar;y,

........IICooIdng u.., 1000BIuII 1,304 Enar;y, InnualCooIdng u.., 1000Btu/yr 1,284 ofG

.. , 150% -0.40 0.94 Cooking E1IIcIency 5.83% CooIdng EIIcI"",,, 5.112% Sfnllllll1ty -2 -5.82 0.25 ea
..& 185% 1.32 1.18 Enar;y,Totll"""".1u.., 1000 Btu/'ir 1,304 Enarvv,Totol"""""1u.., 1000Btu/yr 2,702 10Y".1JIe 2 -8.50 0.03 Modi1Iad 215% 7.04 2.00 Enar;yFoelor 5.83% EnarvvFoetor 2.72% Chango 

## > V ••

, 1l1li7 

# I_ I_

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200S 2007 200S 200G 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 I 

# - - MODlFlEDRANGE InllllledCool, AddIIonII 78.89 Malntfn....,. Cool 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.1' 5.01 8.1' 10.47 13.85 15.83 1'.11 20.83 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnulIHI"

.. ' GilCool 7.84 7.74 7.14 B.07 8.1' 8.32 8.45 8.58 8.73 8.88 '.03 '.1' '.35 '.52 UG 8.88 10.04 10.22 10.34 0.00 AnnulIElectlicit}' Cool 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.38 2.42 2.44 2.48 2.4' 2.52 2.88 2.58 2.83 2.87 2.88 2.80 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 0.00

TotllCooII 78.80 D.87 11.11 12.13 12.28 12.43 12.88 12.74 14.28 18.28 19.83 22.09 25.47 27.84 31.31 33.31 34.88 35.115 37.51 37.84 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malnt

.. anca Cool 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annu.,HI"

.. ' GI,Cool 17.48 17.14 18.42 18.71 19.00 10.30 111.80 1•.•1 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.211 23.71 23.l1li 0.00 AnnualElectlicit}' Cool 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TotalCool. 17.48 17.94 18.42 18.71 111.00 111.30 111.80 111.111 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.211 23.71 23.l1li 0.00 RESUlTS HtII Saving',

_ Rengo -78.811 7.81 8.04 8.211 8.43 8.57 8.72 8.88 !I.85 3.l1li 0.'7 -1.14 -4.18 -8.28 -11.23 -10.84 -11.118 -12.87 -13.81 -13.85 0.00

(I) KlnlillcOllpoIIIIva,ntllp
....., va".ofMY

..lIw.gollnlllllcool;"Inlllllcoolnog_,lnIlallllllngl/NPVofMY

..c:ool•. DATA SET No. A-8 (DOE-2)**0812~4**Table A-1O. Standing Pilots Replaced with Electronic Ignition, New Outlet- -Standard Oven

COST CALCUtATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS ISULTS @6% DIsc. RI. AS Ceulalfons ar.kr Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Cost Scenaño DOE, Residantal, Ret. Case Annuatzed Net 8ev. -10.15 5/yr DISCOUNT RATE An Say, $ Ba/Cat DIscount Rate (Ree 8.0% Benefit/Cost(s) 0.09 MODIFIEDRANGE ApplancoLlte,Yoers 19 kmnlRat.otRetirn NA SensItIvity 2.0% -8.47 NA Mekl,,fromMmUfsc.tuilngCost 2.61 SlmplePaybsck Never toDlsc'nt 1.0% -10.69 0.11 AddadlnstalledCost,$ 123.86 NetEnergySeved 1,489k8tu/yr Rate 15.0% -18.48 0.18 BASE CASE RANGE Mnualzed Gas Say. 11.44 5/yr MaIntenance Cost, 5, NPV@ 8% 69.05 MaIntenance Coat, 5, NPV@ 6% . 0.00 FiRST COST An 8ev, $ BIt/Cat Gee, Annual 000ldng Use, 1000 RU/yr 1.204 0cC, AnnUal Cootig Us., 1000 RU/yr 1,284 Gas,Non-000ldngPllots,t000etihrr 0 Gee,Non-Coogts,10008U/yr 1,506 SENSITIViTY SensItivity 75% -7.38 0.11 Gas,SelfClean,t000Rtu/yr,OCycles 0 Gea,SeltClean,l000Btu/yr,OCycles 0 loFirit 85% -8.49 0.10 Gas, Total Use, 10008W/yr 1,204 Gas, Total Uae, 10008W/yr 2,792 GAS COST An 8ev, $ BIt/Cat Cost 120% -12.37 0.01 150% -15.70 0.06 ElectrIcity, PctnualCooklng Use, l*/yr 29.2 SensitIvity 80% -12.44 NA ElectrIcIty, Claclç kWtVyr 0.0 to Gas 120% -7.68 0.29 GAS QUANTITY An Say, $ Rft/Cst EleCtrICity, Sell Clean, I/Mr/yr. 0 Cycles 0.0 Cost Electrlclty,Totel,k'Mr/yr 29.2 SialtIvIty 60% -12.44 NA APPUANCE UFE An Say, $ RB/Cit to Amount 125% -1.29 0.34 Energy, MnualCooldng Us., l000Btu4 1,304 Energy, Mnual000ldng U., 10008W/yr 1,284 of Gsa, 150% -4.43 0.80 CooldngElltcl.ncy 5.83% Cooldng EffIciency 5.92% SensItIvIty -2 -9.92 0.16 Base& 165% -2.72 0.16 Energy, Total Mnual Use, 1000 Rtu/yr 1,304 Energy, Total Mnual Use, 10008W/yr 2,792 to Yri. lii. 2 -10.32 0,02 ModIfIed 215% 3.00 1.27 Energy Fector 5.63% Energy Fector 2.72% Change

Year 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE rntafled Cost, AddlIonet 123.88 Malntaranc.Cost 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.62 1.82 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.65 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.51 0.00 AnnualNatiralGasCost 7.54 7.14 7.94 8.07 8.19 6.32 8.45 8.58 8.73 8.88 9.03 9.10 9.35 9.52 9.69 9.88 10.04 10.22 10.34 0.00 AnnualElsctilcltyCost 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.39 2.42 2.44 2.46 2.49 2.52 2.56 2.50 2.83 2.67 2.88 2.69 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 0.00 TotatCosts 123.88 0.87 11.91 12.13 12.28 12.43 12.58 12.74 14.28 18.28 19.63 22,09 25.47 27.94 31.31 33.31 34.86 35.96 37.51 37.64 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE MaIntenance Coat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MnuatNetiralGasCo$t 17.48 17.94 18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.01 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.66 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.11 23,99 0.00 Annual ElectrIcity Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TolalCoita 17.48 17.94 18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19,60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.66 22,07 22.47 22,88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 FESULTS Net8avlnga,ModlltadRangs -123,88 7.61 8.04 6.29 6,43 6.57 6.72 6.88 5.65 3.99 0.97 -1.14 -4.18 -6,28 -9.23 -10.84 -11.96 -12.67 -13.81 -13.65 0.00 (a) If Inliat cost posItive, not present vaIce offuture sodngs,lnltlslcost; If InItial costnegstlv., kitlel aavingIJNPV of *.jttrr. cost.. DATA SET No. A-8A (005-2) 03/25194 TableA-lO. StandingPilots Replacedwith ElectronicIgnition, New Outlet

- -StandardOven

COST CALCUlATION DOUARS ASSUMPTIONS RESULTS @8""Dloc. RI. AR Cal::uIaUon

....In Conl1enl li90DoHa

... Fuel ColI**Bc..,a~o** DOE, _donlal, Rot. Co•• Annu.heel Not So•. -10.15Sty, DISCOUNT RATE An So., S Bft/CI1 Diocount Rala(Ra19 8.0% Beno1lI/Col1(a) 0.09 MODIFIED RANGE ApplanceLn_, Yal", 19 Inlml Rale01 Ratlm NA Senolfl\1ty 2.0% -8.47 NA Mor1c**~!rom** MonuIlCIurtng ColI 2.81 Simple Plybock Navar 10 Dloc'nl 7.0"" -10.89 0.11 Added 1n11111ed Coli, S 123.811 NelEnergySaved 1,489 kBtutyr Rale 15.0"" -18.48 0.18 BASE CASE RANGE Annufllzed Gaa Sav. 11.44 Styr Malnl.,

.....ColI, " NPV@ 8"" e9.05 MainI.,

.....ColI, " NPV@ 8% 0.00 FIRST COST An Sa., S Bft/C11 GI.,AnnuliCoo"'ng U.e, 1000Btlty, 1,_ Go.,AnnuliCooldnguaa, 1000Btltyr 1,284 GI., Non-Cooldng PIlot., 1000Btltyr 0 G••, Non-Cooldng PlIotI, 1000Btltyr 1,508 SENSITIVITY S.,oIU\1ty 75"" -7.36 0.11 Ga.,So.Cllan, 1000Btuty" 0eye
... 0 Go.,So.Clean, 1000Btutyr, 0eye
... 0 loRi'll 85"" -8.49 0.10 GI.,Totaluaa, l000BlUty' 1,_ G•• ,Totaluaa, l000Btutyr 2,792 GAS COST An SO" S Bft/C.I ColI 120% -12.37 0.07 150% -15.70 0.08 EIoctIldty, """'alCooldng U.e, Wfnty' 29.2 SlI101U\1ty 80% -12.44 NA EIoctIldty, Clock, tl!Nhtyr 0.0 toG•• 120% -7.811 0.29 GAS QUANTITY An Sa., S Bft/C11 EIoctIldty, So.Cllan, tl!Nhtyr, 0eye
... 0.0 Coli EIoctIldty,Totol, tl!Nhty, 29.2 B.,oId\1ty 80"" -12.44 NA APPUANCE UFt An Sa.,S Bft/C11 10Amounl 125"" -7.29 0.34 Enargy, """'"ICoo"'ng u.., 1000BlUIl 1,304 Enargy, ""'"alCooldnguaa, 1000BlUty, 1,284 olGa., 150"" -4.43 0.80 CooIdng Etllcloncy 5.113"" Coo"'ng Etllcloncy 5.92% SlI101U\1ty -2 -0.92 0.18 ea.o& 185"" -2.72 0.78 Energy,Totll""""alu.., 1000etutyr 1,304 Energy, Total...."...1uaa, 1000 BlUtyr 2,792 10Y

....**~** 2 -10.32 0.02 Modlftad 215"" 3.00 1.27 EnargyFElor 5.113"" EnorgyFElor 2.72% Change 

## > v ••, 1997 1_ 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 200D 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 I 

# - N MOOF1ED RANGE 1n11111ed ColI, Addllonll 123.811 MainI.,

.....ColI 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.111 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.85 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annual N

..... IGI.ColI 7.54 7.74 7.114 e.o7 8.19 8.32 8.45 8.58 8.73 8.811 11.03 11.19 11.35 0.52 11.89 0.811 10.04 10.22 10.34 0.00 AnnualEIoctIldty ColI 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.39 2.42 2.44 2.48 2.49 2.52 2.58 2.511 2.83 2.87 2.811 2.811 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 0.00

TotIICot

.. 123.811 9.87 11.111 12.13 12.28 12.43 12.58 12.74 14.28 18.28 19.83 22.09 25.47 27.94 31.31 33.31 34.811 35.118 37.51 37.84 0.00 BASECASE RANGE MainI.,anc.ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual N"","IGa.ColI 17.48 17.114 18.42 18.71 111.00 111.30 111.80 111.91 20.25 20.80 20.05 21.32 21.811 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 AnnuliEIoctIldty ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TotalCot

.. 17._ 17.114 18.42 18.71 111.00 19.30 19.80 111.91 20.25 20.80 20.05 21.32 21.811 22.07 22.47 22.811 23.20 23.71 23.99 0.00 RESULTS NotSaving.,ModHIad Range -123.811 7.81 8.04 8.29 8.43 8.57 8.72 8.811 5.85 3.99 0.97 -1.14 -4.18 -8.28 -9.23 -10.84 -11.118 -12.87 -13.81 -13.85 0.00

(a)Wlnllalcol1 poIlU

.. ,nllp

... .,1v....01 Mo

.... vlngl/lnillolcool;HInIUllcoolnoglllvo,lnIlol.avlngl/NPV01 Mo

..COl". DATA SET No. A-8A(DOE-2)**08!2~**A-13



# I

CI)I0 0 8888 8888 8 000 0000 60000 0000 0000 6

.' 88 88 oóo 60600 00 00 0 a, III liii a 111CC 888 88
2 O0 00 0
I- 88 88 c 2 ao2 o6g 6
88 88 2 0 C 88 88 2 oo o6 a 88 88 2. oo eo oo 6

2 2 2 88 88 2 10 0 00 S 00 oo oo 0 8 88 828 2

oä oä 0 0 0 C -



## § 8 88 8&8 2 iI 00 00 0 88; 8?8 8 oo o2ó a
8!8 88 8 óó ó6 6 g?; 8° 88 8;8; 8 c. - oG6 6G6 a 88 88 8 o0o oó. 6 C) 88 8882 8 a,
- oo. oo6 a

U, 

### § § 8;8; 8888 8 ©--. - ecäc 66. a 88 Sz8 8 ooa ös,o 0 

## !! !

88E 8Z8 8

- oep. o,..5i- 6 88? 88! 8

- 00P 0I-6- a

-- -a,e I

C- (' ;C) 

## § r-iTableA-ll.ImprovedDoorSeals--StandardOvenCOSTCALCUlATIONDOllARSASSUMPTIONSRESULTS@8'"Dloc.Rt.0.8CilculaUona.rolneon.,.",IegoDoRa"FuelCoolScenl.oDOE,_danlal,ReI.Ca.aAnnualzedNetSay.-0.18StyrDISCOUNTRATEAnSlY,SBft/CIIIDlocounlRela8.0"-Benoftt/COlI(a)0.33MODIFIEDRANGEApplanceUIa,V....19Inl.,1Rllo01RI"m-4.7'"SenolllYity2.0"--0.100.48lola'"UpfromMlnUIlICIurtngColi2.81SimpiaPaybEkNavertoDlsc'nt7.0'"-0.210.31AddedInlllaRedColli,S3.011NetEnergySaYed13kBtutyrRlI.15.0"--0.410.18BASECASERANGEAnnUI'ZedGa.Say.0.09StyrMalntenonc:eColli,S,NPV@8'"0.00MalnlenanceCool,S,NPV@8"-0.00FIRSTCOSTAnSay,SBft/CIIIGI.,AnnualCookIngUn,1000B1Jtyr1,271G..,AnnualCooIdngUn,1000B1Jtyr1,2MGa.,Non-CooldngPilot.,1000B1Jtyr1,508GI.,Non-CooIdngPilot.,1000B1Jtyr1,508SENSITMTYSenolllYl1y75'"-0.110.44Ga.,S••Cia"",1000Btutyr,O<:}ela.0Ga.,B••Cia"",1000Btutyr,0<:}elet010Rm85'"-0.140.39Ga.,Tot.1Un,l000BlUtyr2,780Gil,TotalUn,l000BlUtyr2,7112GASCOSTAnSaY,SBft/CIICool120"--0.240.28150%-0.320.22SanoHlYity80'"-0.200.2710Ga.120"--0.180.40GASaUANTITYAnSay,SBft/CIIICoolBenolllYity80'"-0.200.27APPlJ.IHCEUFEAnSaY,SBft/CIIlo","ounl125'"-0.180.42Energy,InnUIICooldngUn,1000!!lUll1,271Enlrgy,MnuIlICooIdngUn,l000BlUtyr1,28401Gal,150%-0.140.50CooldngEfllcloncy5.98'"CooldngEfIIcIoncy5.92'110SenoHlYity-2-0.200.31ea••&165'"-0.120.55En.rgy,TotalMnualUn,IDa)BlUtyr2,750En.rgy,ToIal.........1Un,IDa)BlUtyr2,711210V".UIa2-0.170.38Modifted215'"-0.080.72EnargyFlClor2.73'"EnargyFlCtor2.72'110Chango»Voor1997I_I_2000200120022003200420052008200720082009201020112012 20132014201520182017I-WMODIFIEDRANGEInllloRedCool,AddUonal3.011MoinlenanceCool0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00AnnuliNa"rllGuCool17.4017.l1li18.33lU218.9119.2119.5119.8220.1820.5120.l1li21.22 21.582U722.3722.7723.1823.5023.880.00AnnualEIocIIIcIIyCool0.000.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00TotllCoaIo3.01117.4017.l1li18.3318.8218.9119.2110.5119.8220.1820.5120.l1li21.22 21.582U722.3722.7723.1823.5023.680.00BASE CASERANGEMaintenanceCool0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00AnnuliNI"rllGI.Cool17.4817.9418.4218.7119.00 19.3019.5019.9120.2520.5020.95 21.3221.6822.0722.4722.6823.2923.7123.990.00AnnualEIocIIIcIIyCool0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.00TotIICoaI.17.41117.9418.4218.7119.0019.3019.8019.9120.2520.80.20.9521.32 21.6822.0722.4722.6823.2923.7123.990.00REBUlTSNetS.Ylng.,_edRIngo-3.0110.080.08 0.08 0.090.090.09 0.090.090.090.090.100.100.10 0.100.100.100.110.110.110.00(I)HInIlalcollip_,netp......,ya".oIlUIuroHInIUalcoalnog_,InIlalaaYlng./NPVoIlUIurocoalo.DATASETNo..0.-7(DOE-5)0IIJ2!!r'94Table A-12. Improved Door Seals--Self-Cleaning Oven

COST CALCULATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS IESULTS @6% CIsc. RI. AS Ca ulflns ar.In Constant 1990 Dollar, Fuel Cost $cena4o DOE, Resldantel, Ret, Case Annualzed Net Say. -0.21 $,r DISCOUNT RATE An Say, $ 08/Cit DIscount Rat, (R.a 6.0% BerrefttICoyt(s) 0.27 MODIFIEDRANGE AppIanceLIte,Years 19 lntrnlRataolRetjrn -6.3% Se1sItl1ty 2.0% -0.12 0.39 MakLtromManutscturIngCoat 2.61 SlmplePaybsck Never loCtsc'nt 7.0% -0.23 0.25 MdedlnstafledCost, $ 3.15 NelEnergySavad 11 kAtu/yr Rat. 15.0% -0.43 0.14 BASE CASE RANGE Annualzed Gas Say. 0.08 S/yr Malnturance Cost, 5, NPV@ 8% 89.05 Meinturenc. Cost, 5, NPV@ 5% 89.06 FiRST COST An Say, $ BtVCst Gas Annual Cooldng Ui., 1000 01.1/yr 956 Gaa,AnnualCooWng Use, 1000 Oh/yr 966 Gas,Non-CooldngPtlote.l0000ti/yr 0 Gas,Non-CooldngPllota,l0008tr/yr 0 SENSITIVIIY SensItIvIty 75% -0.14 0.38 Gas,$.NCleen,l000Btu/yr,4Cyclea 173 Gaa,SellCleen,l0000tu/yr,4Cycles 173 toRrst 65% -0.16 0.32 Gas,Total Us., l0000tu/yr 1129 GiaTotal Use, l0009tu/yr 1,139 GAS COST An Say, S BR/Cat Cost 120% -0.26 0.22 150% -0.35 0.18 Elechtctty, Annual Cooldng Use, k%Mr/yr 29.2 Elechlctty, Annual Cooldng Use, W.hfyr 29.2 SenalIMty 50% -0.22 0.22 ElectrIcIty, ClOCk, IMr/yr 31.5 ElectrIcIty, Clock, kWh/yr 31.5 to Gas 120% -0.19 0.32 GAS QUANTITY An Say, $ EliCit ElectrIcity, Sell Clean, kM,Nr, 4 Cycles 0.7 ElectrIcity, Sell Clean, kWhA,r, 4 Cycles 0.7 Cost ElectrIcity, Total, kWh/yr 81.5 ElectrIcity, Total, kWh/yr 81.5

. SmeilIty 80% -0.22 0.22 APPUANCEUFE AnSav,$ BIt/Cut toAnrount 125% -0.19 0.34 Energy, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 GlUtI 1,056 Energy, Annual Cooldng U., 1000 Btu/yr 1,066 at Gas, 150% -0.17 0.40 Cooldng Ettlcl.ncy 7.20% Cooldng Elllclsncy 713% SursltMty -2 -0.23 0.25 Baaa& 165% -0.16 0.44 Energy,TotalAnnualUae,lO00Btu/yr 1,338 En.rgy,TotalAnnu.lUae,tO00Btu/yr 1,349 toYrs.Llte 2 -0.19 0.29 ModIfied 215% -0.12 0.58 Energy Fector 5.68% Energy Feclor 5.84% Change

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017

MODIFiED RANGE Installed Cost, Aoldtlonal 3.15 Maintutence Cost 0.00 1.52 1.52 1.52 152 1.82 1.62 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.85 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23,21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnuelNakrrelGesCost 7.00 7.25 7.44 7.50 7.88 790 7.92 8.05 6,18 6.33 8.47 8.61 8.76 8.92 9.08 9.25 9.41 9.58 9.70 0.00 AnnuelElectrIcityCost 4.90 4.94 4.96 8.03 8.08 5.13 5.16 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.81 5.63 5.65 5.68 5.70 8.72 5.74 0.00 TolalCoete 3,15 11.96 14.01 14.25 14.41 14.58 14.75 14.92 16.48 18,49 21.59 24.39 27.80 30.30 33.68 35.60 37.22 38.31 39.87 40.00 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malnt.,enceCoet 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 112 112 112 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.85 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnuelNakiralGesCost 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.63 7.75 7.87 6.00 6.t2 8.20 6.40 8.55 6.70 6.85 9.00 9.17 9.33 9.50 9.87 9.79 0.00 AnnuilElectricltyCost 4.90 4.94 498 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.81 5.83 5.65 5.68 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00 TotalCoets 12.03 14.08 14.32 14.46 14.65 14.82 15.00 16.54 18.57 2197 24.47 27.86 30.36 33.74 35.75 37.30 38.40 39.90 40.09 0.00 IESILIS N.tSevlngs,ModlkdRang. -3.15 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00 (a) filnilalcost posItive, n*t present Vaki. 01 Itur. saitngaflnlllelcoet; II hittlalcoetnegsliv., Inilal savtnga/NPV offuture costs. DATA BET No. A-S (DCE-2) 

### Table A-12. 

### Improved Door Seals--Self-CleaningOven

COST CAlCUlATION DOLlARS ASSUMPTIONS RESUlTB @8%Dlsc. RI.
AI CaIcuIoHon. ar.1n ConllanllD90 Dollo

.. Fu.1 ColIBcenallo DOE, _donlal, ReI. COla AnnualledNot Sav. -0.21 Sf'lr DISCOUtoIT MTE An Sov,S Bft/CII Dlocoun1 Ral.**(Ral~** 8.0% Benonl/Cosl(0) 0.27 MODIFIED MNGE Applance UIit, Y

.... 18 Inlml Ral.of Rellm -8.3% Bon.IU'II1y 2.0% -0.12 0.38 MarkUpfrom Manula::turfng ColI 2.81 SimplePaybl!Ck Nover toDlsc'nl 7.0% -0.23 0.25 AddedInllalled ColI, S 3.15 NetEnergy Saved 11 kBtuf'lr Rala 15.0% -0.43 0.14 BASE CASE MNGE AnnualzedGa.Sav. 0.085f'1r
Malnlonance ColI, S, NPV@ 8% e8.05 MaIn1ononca ColI, S, NPV@ 11% a8.05 FIRST COST An Bav,S Bft/CII G••,Annu.1Cooldng Us., 1000BlJf'lr 1158 GI.,AnnualCooldng Usa, 1000BlJf'lr 

# - Ga., Non-Cooldng Pilot., 1000BlJf'lr 0 Ga.,Non-CooIdng Pilot., 1000BlJf'lr 0 SENSITIVITY Bonoltlvlly 75% -0.14 0.38 Ga.,S••Clean, 1000FJluf'lr, 4 Cycloo 173 Ga.,Sa.Clean, 1000FJluf'lr, 4 Cycloo 173 10RrIII 85% -0.18 0.32 Ga.,TalilUsa, l000FJluf'lr 1,1211 Ga.,Talil Us., l000FJluf'lr 1,138 GAS COST AnSav, S Bft/CII ColI 120% -0.28 0.22 150% -0.35 0.18 Eloctolclly, InnullCooldng Us., -f'lr 211.2 Eloctolclly,lnnualCooldng Us.,_f'lr 211.2 SonolH'II1y 80% -0.22 0.22 Eloctolclly, Clock, kWhf'lr 31.5 Eloctolclly, Clock, kWhf'lr 31.5 loG

.. 120% -0.18 0.32 GAS QUANTITY AnSDV,S Bft/CII Eloctolclly, BoW Clean, kWhf'lr, 4 Cycle. 0.7 Eloctolclly, Bo.Clean, kWhf'lr, 4 Cycloo 0.7 Coli Eloctolclly, Talll, kWhf'lr 81.5 Eloctolclly, ToIal, kWhf'Ir 81.5 BonIllU'II1y 80% -0.22 0.22 APPUANCE UFE AnSav,S Bft/CII 10l\mount 125% -0.18 0.34 Enargy,lnnualCooldng Usa,I000FJluh 1,058 Enorgy,lnnu.1Cooldng Usa, 1000FJluf'lr l,ose olGa., 150"'- -0.17 0.40 Cooldng Efllcloncy 7.20% Cooking Efllcloncy 7.13% SonollJvlly -2 -0.23 0.25 Ba.o& 185% -0.18 0.44 Energy, Tallllnnu.1Usa, 10Q)FJluf'lr 1,338 Energy, Talallnnu.1Usa, 10Q)FJluf'lr 1,348 10Y

...UIit 2 -0.18 0.211 Modlfted 215% -0.12 0.58 EnergyFoetor 5.88% EnergyFoe

.... 5.84% Chang. 

## > Year 1997 1_ llK111 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 200Q 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 I



### .....**~** MODIFIED RANGE Inllolled ColI, AcIdItonal 3.15 Malnlononca ColI 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.18 5.01 8.18 10.47 13.85 15.83 18.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnUli NOllral GI.Cool 7.011 7.25 7.44 7.58 7.88 7.80 7.92 8.05 8.18 8.33 8.47 8.81 8.78 8.92 8.08 8.25 8.41 8.58 8.70 0.00 AnnualEloctolclly ColI 4.80 4.84 4.88 6.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.81 5.83 5.85 5.88 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

TalolCool1 3.15 11.l1li 14.01 14.25 14.41 14.58 14.75 14.92 18.48 18.48 21.88 24.38 27.80 30.30 33.88 35.88 37.22 38.31 39.87 40.00 0.00
BASE CASE MNGE Malnlononc.ColI 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.18 5.01 8.18 10.47 13.85 15.83 18.11 20.83 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annual Noll,"1Go.ColI 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.83 7.75 7.87 8.00 8.12 8.28 8.40 8.55 8.70 8.85 8.00 8.17 8.33 8.50 8.87 8.78 0.00 AnnuliEloctolclly ColI 4.80 4.84 4.88 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.81 5.83 5.85 5.88 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

ToIalCooII 12.03 14.011 14.32 14.48 14.85 14.82 15.00 18.54 18.57 21.117 24.47 27.88 30.38 33.74 35.75 37.30 38.40 38.l1li 40.011 0.00
REBUlTS Net SloAngl, ModIIed Rang. -3.15 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.00

(0) "1nIlllcollpoolllva,nlllpraoont ••".01 MIl

..lOoAngI/inlUolcool;"lnIHalcoolnagBllve,lnIlollOoAngl/NPV01MII,acool•. DATASET No. A-8 (DOE-2) 08/21VD4Table A-13. Forced Convection added to Standard-Plus-Electric Ignition- -Standard Oven

COST CALCULATION DOUAT ASSUMPTIONS llESUT.TS @6% DIsc. Pt.
NCelouletlons er.lo Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Cost Scsneo DOE, Resldeilel, P01. Case Annustzed Net S.v. -14,61 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 8ev, S Bit/Cit Discount Rate (Res 6.0% Benallt/Cost(a) NA MODW1EDRANGE ApplsnceLfle,Years 19 kitntlRet.otRetjm NA SeistlIvity 2.0% -11.42 NA MskL,tromManutsctirtngCoat 2.81 SlmplaPaybsck Never loDtsc'nt 7.0% -15.55 NA Added Installed Cost, $ 131.12 Nat Energy Saved 66 kBtu/yr Rat. 15.0% -23.43 NA BASE CASE RANGE Annudzed Gas 5ev, 0.55 S/yr Malnt.ience Cost, 5, NPV@ 5% 125.34 Malntaw.nce Cost, S. NPV@ 6% 89.05 FiRST COST An 8ev, S Bit/Cit Gas Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 Bti/yr 1,127 Ga., AnnualCooldng Use, l000B*i/yr 1,204 Gsa,Non-CooldngPllol$,l000Bth/yr 0 Gaa,Non-CooldngPllots,t000Bti/yr 0 SENSIITVITV Si&tMty 75% -11.73 NA Gs.,Se8Cl.en,l000Btu/yr,OCycIes 0 Gsa,SellCIean,l000Btu/yr,OCyclea 0 toFlrst 65% -12.90 NA Ga., Total Use, 1000 Btu/yr 1.121 Ge., Total Usa, 1000 Btu/yr 1,204 GAS COST An 8ev, S Bit/Cat Coat 120% -17.02 NA 150% -20.54 NA Elactklty, AnnualCooldng Use, kwh/yr 31.7 Elsctlclty, AnnuelCooldng Use, W*i/yr 29.2 SmoltKIty 60% -14.76 NA EI.CtdCfty, Clock, kwh/yr 0.0 Elsct4clly, Clock, kwh/yr 0.0 to Gas 120% -14.58 NA GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, S Bit/Cal Electklty, 8e8 Clean, kWh/yr. 0 Cycles 0.0 EISCtIICIIy, 8.8 Clean, kWh/yr, 0 Cycles 0.0 Coat Electtlctty,Totsl,kWh/yr 31,7 Elsctdclty,Totel,kwh/yr 29.2 Sanstitty 60% -14.76 NA APPUANCE UF An Ssv, S Bit/Cit to Miount 125% -14.53 NA Energy, Annual Cooldng Use, l000Btu4 1238 Energy, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 Btu/yr 1.304 Gas, 150% -14.39 NA Cooldng Efficiency 6.15% CoOIdng Efficiency 5.63% Seidthlty -2 -15.65 NA Bes.& 165% -14.31 NA Energy, Total Annual Ut., 1000 Btu/yr 1,236 Energy, Total Annual Use, 1000 Blu/yr 1,304 to Yr.. UI. 2 -13.89 NA ModIfied 215% -14.03 NA Energy Fsctor 8.15% Energy Foctor 5.63% Change

Year 1997 1908 1009 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Coat, Addtlon.l 131.12 MalntenanceCost 0.00 1.82 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.82 1.62 3.19 5.01 73.19 10.47 13.65 15.93 tOll 20.93 22,30 23.21 24.57 24.87 0.00 Mnu.lNstjralGaaCost 7.08 7.24 7.44 7.55 7.67 7.79 7.91 6.04 6.16 832 8.46 8.51 8.15 6.01 9.07 9.24 9.40 9.57 9.69 0.00 Annual El.cttlclty Cost 2.53 2.55 2.57 2.80 2.62 2.65 2.67 2.70 2.74 2.76 2.62 2.86 2.90 2.91 2.92 2.93 2.94 2.95 2.96 0.00 TotalCo.t$ 131.12 9.50 11.62 11.53 11.97 12.11 12.26 12.41 13.92 15.92 84.26 21.74 25.l1 27.58 30.03 32.02 34.46 35.55 37.10 37.22 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE MaIntenance Cost 0.00 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 3.19 5.01 6.19 10.47 l3.65 15.93 19.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.51 0.00 AnnualNakiralGasCost 7.54 7.74 7.94 8.07 6.19 6.32 6.45 8.58 8.73 6.68 9.03 0.19 9.35 9.52 9.69 9.66 10.04 10,22 10,34 0.00 Annual Electddty Cost 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.39 2.42 2.44 2.46 2.49 2.52 2.56 2.59 2.63 2.67 2.68 2.80 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 0.00 TotslCoeta 9.87 11.91 12.13 12.26 12.43 12.58 12.74 14.26 16.28 10.63 22.09 25.47 21.94 31.31 33,31 34.68 35.06 37.51 37.64 0.00 8LLTS N.t8evtngs,Modlfi.dPengS -131.12 0.26 0.20 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 -64.55 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.42 0,00 U'

(a) Bkflulcost posItIve, net pr.s.lt vekia of future aedngsftitlatcoet: If Inltlafcoetn.gtdv., InitIal ae.fngs/NPV ci tuture colts. DATA SET No. A-a (DOE-i) 03126'04

### A-16

600 0000 eóoäó

a *00

., 0 óoó III UI ooóo

liii U) 66600

11111 0

- Io

C,

0o Q0

a a,

- CO 0 a SC, 00 a C,

06 0
Z UI UI II U) II

UI If 0) W 0) C)

g go C

()

UI 

### § 

# Lfl1

•0

### jOOOO UI Will

UI 

### ! UI



### § z O W

S

- 5-

# W C)

• £ C) •0 •0•• S 8888 2888 8 o606 0000 0 8;8; 8g oo 00 0
88 z8 E óo o6 0 884 6og 00 0 88 88 6og 0O 0

000 0P0P' 0.o óo 00j 0

gg g8

. äo od 0 8.8_ 88 00 00; 0 88 00 00 0

00 00 0 822 6o od 0

00 00 0 88 8;8; dooo oo6Q 0

o.o oo6o o

0O0 0000 0 88 8888 Ooo oodQ o 8g zg do 0060 a

0200 0200 0 88& 88; ; 0 00 0 88 ; °:°: 00 0 C



# i

0

•

S S UI

• 2

•- ZUI wj•; 

# d

00

z -TableA-14.ReducedVentRate--StandardOvenCOSTCALCUlATIONDOLLARSASSUMPTIONSAESUlTS@8.,.DlI<:.RI.AI!Cll:uI.lHan.arelnCanll."t1990DollaroFuelColISeenldoDOE,Relddon'ol,Ref.Ca..AnnualzedNeta.v,-0.38SlyrDISCOUNTRATEMSa.,SBft/CIIDll<:ountRala8.0%Benonl/CoII(0)0.12MODIAEDRANGEAflplance1JIe,v....10IntmlRailofRe\Jm-12.1'"SenldHvlty2.0%-0.240.17M.rt<Up110mMonuIlC!urlngColI2.81SimplePOybllCkNovartoDloc'nt7.0%-0.400.11AddedIn..alladColI,S4.58NetEnargySaved7kBtulyrRat.15.0%-0.890.08BASECASERANGEAnnual!edGaaSav.0.05SlyrMalntenancoColI,S,NPV@8%0.00MaintenanceColI,S,NPV@8%0.00ARSTCOSTMSa.,SBIIICIlG••,Annu.1CookinglIM,1000Blllyr1,277G••,AnnualCookinglIM,1000Blllyr1,284Gil,Non-CookingPilot.,1000Blllyr1,508GI.,Nan-CooldngPilot.,l000Blllyr1,508SENSITMTYSonldtlvlty75%-0.200.18Gao,801CIe.",1000Btulyr,0Cyc","0G••,80'CIe.",1000Btulyr,0Cyc","0toAm85%-0.300.14Ga.,Totalu..,l000Btulyr2,788Ga.,TotallIM,l000Btulyr2,702GASCOSTMSa.,SBft/CIICOli120%-0.440.10150%-0.570.08SonldHvIty80%-0.370.00toG••120%-0.350.14GASQUANTITYMSa.,SBft/CIIColISenldHvIty80%-0.370.00APPUANCEUFEMSa.,SBft/CIItoArnoun1125%-0.350.15Enorgy,"'nualCookingUt.,1000Btull1,277En.rgy,InnuIICookinglIM,1000Btulyr1,284olGa.,150%-0.340.17CookingEfttcloncy5.115%CookingEfttcloncy5.1I2'JIo80nldHvIty-2-0.300.11B...&185%-0.330.10Enorgy,ToiallnnuallIM,1000Btulyr2,788Energy,ToIlllnnullu..,1000Btulyr2,702toVro.1JIe2-0.340.12ModttIod215%-0.310.25EnergyFetor2.73%EnergyFetor2.72%Olanga>Y.ar1l1li71l1li8,_2000200120022003 200420052008200720082000201020112012 2013 2014 201520182017I-0\MODIFIEDRANGEInllllladColI,AddHonol4.58MllntenancoColI0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnualNo'"alGa.ColI17.4417.9018.37lB.8818.11510.2510.55 10.8820.2020.5520.90 21.2721.83 22.02 22.4222.8223.2323.8523.930.00AnnuliEIoc1I1cHyColI0.00 0.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.000.00ToillCoItI4.5817.4417.9018.3718.8818.11519.2510.5519.8820.2020.5520.9021.2721.83 22.02 22.4222.8223.2323.8523.030.00BASECASERANGEMllntenanceColI0.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00AnnuliNI'"alGI.ColI17.4817."111.4218.7110.0010.3010.8010.0120.2520.8020.11521.3221.8822.07 22.4722.8823.2023.7123.l1li0.00AnnuliEIoc1I1cHyColI0.00 0.000,000.000.000,000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000,00ToillCoIt.17.4817."18.4218.7110.00 10.3010.8010.0120.2520.8020.11521.3221.88 22.0722.4722.8823.2023,7123.l1li0.00FE8ULTSNetSaving"ModttIodRango-4.580.04 0.04 0.04 0.040.05 0.05 0.050.050.050.050.05 0.050.05 0.050.050.050.08 0.08 0.080.00(I)"1nt1.1coolpool1lw,netp.....,t.1".offutureaavingl/lnlttaICOlt;"1nItI.lcootnogllllva,lnIlallOvingl/NPVoffuturoco.t•.DATASETNo.A-l0(DOE-3)Table A- 15. Reflective Surfaces

- -Chrome

-Plated Oven Cavity-

-Standard Oven

COST CALCULATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS ESI.&TS @5%DI.c. RI.
N CalculatIons areln Constant l0900oItar. FUel Colt 8c.nido DOE, R..IdalaI, Rat. Case Annusized Nat Say, -415 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An Say, $ BR/Cat DIscount Rate (R.a 6.0% Bsrrel%I/Cost(a) NA MODIFIED RANGE Applance Ut., Year. 19 InIfnI Rate 01 Retjrn NA Sanllthity 2.0% -4.78 NA Uadc , 1mm Manulscturtng Colt 2.81 8tmpIo Paybsclc Never to Dlsc'nt 7.0% -6.52 NA Added Installed Cost, $ 53.68 Net Energy Sav.d -185 IcEtu/yr Rat, 15,0% -9.95 NA BASE CASE RANGE Annusized (3cc 8.1. -1.33 S/yr Malntanance Coat, S. NPV@ 8% 0.00 Matntanance Cost, 5, NPV@ 8% 0.00 FIRST COST An SCy, S BR/Cat Gas, Nsiual Cooldng Us., 1000 Bti/yr 1.469 Gas, Annual Cooldng U.., 1000 Bli/yr 1284 8ENSIflV1TY SansltNtty 75% -4 94 NA Gas, Non-Cooldng PRota, 1000 Bl/yr 1,508 Gas. Non-Cooldng PIlot., 1000 851/yr 1,506

. toRrat 85% . -5 42 NA Ga.,8.WCI.an,1000BtU/yr,OCyClSl 0 2 978 Gas,8.VCIean,100001u/yr,OCycl.s l000Btu/yr Gea Total Use 0 2 792 GAS COST An Say, S BEt/Cat Coat 120% . -7.11 NA G..,ToIuI Us., i000Btufyr , , . , 150% -8.55 NA 8.tsItIfty 80% -5.85 NA to Gas 120% -6.41 NA GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, $ BR/Cat Coat SeisIlivIty 80% -5.68 NA APPLIANCE UFE An Say, S BR/Cat to Amount 125% -5.45 NA Energy, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Btu/ 1,489 Energy, Annual Cootdng U.., 1000 BIU/yr 1,284 of Gas, 150% 165% -5.81

7 01 NA

NA Cooldng EftcI.ncy 5.17% Cooldng Effldsncy 5.92% SeisItMty -2 -8.44 NA Bee. & - . En.rgy,TotelMnualUse,lO00BtUNr 2,918 En.rgy,ToIsIPnnuaIUae,10008tu/yr 2,792 toYrs.Ufa 2 -5.91 NA ModIfIed 215% -1.68 NA Energy Fsctor 2.55% Energy Fsctor 2.72% Change

Y.pr 1991 1998 1099 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Inata0sd Cost, AddItIonal 53.68 000 0 00 0 00 0 00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M&nterance Cost AnnualNatIralGacCoit . 15.54 .

19.13 .

19.64 .

19.95 .

20.26 20.58 20.90 21.23 21.59 21.97 22.34 22.73 23.12 23.54 23.96 24.39 24.83 25.28 25.55 0.00 Annual ElscIllctty Cast 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCoata 53.68 18.64 19.13 19.54 19,95 20.26 20.56 20,00 21.23 21.59 21.91 22.34 22.13 23.12 23.54 23.95 24,30 24.83 25.26 25.58 0.00
BASE CASE RANGE 0 00 000 0 00 0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Milntanance Cost

. 17 48 .

17 94 .

18 42 .

18 71 .

19 00 19.30 10.60 19.91 20.25 20.50 20.05 21.32 21.58 22.07 22.41 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 AnnuelNataratGiaCo$t . 000 .

000 .

000 .

000 .

0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AwualElsctiicttyCoet

. 17 48 .

17 94 .

15 42 .

18 11 .

19 00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.50 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23,71 23.99 0.00 TotalCosts . . . . . IEBULTS Nst8avlngs,UodIfISdRange -53.68 -1.16 -1.19 -1.22 -1.24 -1.26 -1.26 -1.30 -1.32 -1.34 -1.37 -1.39 -1.41 -1.44 -1.46 -1.49 -1.52 -1.55 -1.57 -1.59 0.00
a) If Inlial cost poiflive, nat pr.sant vatz. of future sevtngsflnttlalcoet; If InitIal co.tn.gilIw, Inlial saWcge/NPV of futurocosta DATA BET No. I-i (C-i) 05/28/94Table A-16. Reflective Surfaces- -Chrome-Plated Oven Cavity- -Self-Cleaning Oven

COST CALCLAAIION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS IESULTS @8% DIsc. RI. Alt CalouMons are In Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Cost ScenarIo DOE, Reildanlal, Rat Ca,. Annualz.d Net 9ev. -5.74 $,r DISCOUNT RATE An Say, $ 86/Cat DIscount Rats (Ream 0.0% BeneItlJCost(a) NA MODIF1EDRANGE AçrplwrceUte,Yoars tO hrlinlRateofRetjm NA BelsItMty 2.0% -4.31 NA Ma frnManutscturlng Cost 2.81 SlmplePaybsck Never toDtic'nt 7.0% -6.12 NA AddedInstalledCost,$ 53.66 NetEnergysavad -l29kBtutyr Rate 15.0% -9.55 NA BASE CASE RANGE Annusized Gas 9ev. -0.03 fI' Malntgaance Cost, $, NPV@ 6% 89.05 Maintuiance Cost, 8, NPV@ 6% 80.05 FiRST COST An Say, $ 86/Cit Gas, Annual Cooldng Ui., 1000 B%rn,r 1,095 Gas, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Bti/yr 066 Ga., Non-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 Bt/yr 0 Gas, Non-CookIng PIlotS, 1000 Bkrnr 0 SENSItIViTY Sonsltlvfty 75% -4.54 NA Gas,8.tVClean,10008tU4'r,4CyCIes 173 Oas,8eNCl.an,10008tucr,4Cyctes 173

. toFlrst 85% -5.02 NA Gas, Total Use, 1000810/yr 1268 Gas,Total Use, l000Blu/yr 1,130 GAS COST An Say, $ 86/Cit Cost 120% -8.70 NA 150% -8.14 NA ElectrIcIty, Annual CookIng Use, ttr/yr 29.2 EIsCtItCtty, Annual CookIng Use, kYlti/yr 20.2 Sanaltlntly 80% -5.55 NA ElectrIcIty, Clock, kYh/yr 31.5 ElectrIcIty, Clock, kWtr/yr 31.8 to Gas 120% -5.92 NA GAS QUANTITY An Ssv, $ 86/Cat ElectrIcIty, Sell Clean, lTh/yr, 4 Cycles 0.7 ElectrIcIty, Bitt Clean, kYh/yr, 4 Cycles 0.1 Cost Electrlclty,Total.lMh/yr 61.5 ElactrIclty,Iotsl,kYm/yr 61.8 Sonslth4ty 80% -5.55 NA APPUANCE UPS An Say, S 86/Cit to Amount 125% -5.97 NA Energy, MnuslCooldng Us., t000Blu 1,105 Energy, nnualCooldng Us., l0008tu/yr 1,066 of Ga,, 150% -6.20 NA CooldngElltctency 6.36% CooldngElllclency 7.13% SasltItty -2 -0.04 NA Base& 165% -634 NA En.rgyTotalMnualUse, lO00Btu/yr 1,477 En.rgy,Tot.lMnuelUse. 1000810/yr 1,349 loYrs.LJt. 2 -5.50 NA ModIIt.d 215% -6.80 NA Energy Fectoq 5.15% Energy Fector 5.64% Change

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Instated Cost, Addtlonal 53.68 MaIntenance Cost 0.00 1.62 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.02 1.82 3.19 8.01 8.19 10.47 13.05 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnualNatiralGaaCoet 7.94 8.15 8.36 8.40 8.63 8.76 8.90 9.04 9,19 0.35 0.51 9.68 9.84 10.02 10.20 10.39 10,57 10.70 10.89 0.00 AnnualElectitclty Cost 4.90 4.94 4.08 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.61 5.83 5.65 5.86 5.10 5.72 5.14 0.00 TotalCosta 53.60 12.84 14.91 15.16 15.34 15.53 15.71 15.00 17.45 19.50 22.02 25.43 28.86 31.38 34.76 36.78 38.36 39.48 41.05 41.20 0,00
BASE CASE RANGE Malnt.nanceCoet 0.00 1.82 1.62 1.02 1.82 1.82 1.82 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13,05 15.93 19.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.51 24.57 0.00 MnualNa*iralGasCost 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.03 7.75 7.87 8.00 8.12 8.26 8.40 8.55 8.70 0.85 9.00 0.17 9.33 0,50 0.67 0.70 0.00 AnnuslElectddty Cost 4.00 4.94 4.98 5.03 8.08 5.13 5.10 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.61 5.63 5.65 5.68 5.70 5.72 5.74 0,00 TatalCost. 12.03 14.08 14.32 14.40 14.65 14,82 15.00 16.54 18.57 21.01 24.47 27.08 30.38 33.74 35,75 31.30 38.40 39.96 40.09 0.00
rESULTS Net5anlrrgs,ModllledRange -53.68 -0.81 -0.83 -0.85 -0.86 -0.88 0.89 0.00 0.92 -0.93 0.95 -0.97 0,98 1.00 1.02 1.04 -1.05 -1.01 1.09 1.11 0.00 (a) Illnliatcost posItIve, n.tpr.sait vaIn. otluture eallngslWtlalcoet; If lnltlalcostn.getlve, InIIaI santngs/NPV of lutur.cOsta. DATA SEt' No.1-3 (from I-i) 08/28'94 Table A-16. Reflective Surfaces--Chrome-Plated Oven Cavity- -Self-CleaningOven

COST CAlClAATION DOLlARS ASSUMPTIONS FESULTS @6"'Dlsc. RI. AIICal:ulollan. a
..In Conllant l1K1ODoIla

... Fuel Cool**8cGn.~a** DOE, Anld..,lal, RIll. Co

.. Annualzed NoISa•. -5.74 Styr DISCOUNT RATE AnSa., S BftJCII Dlscounl Rale**(Raa~** 6.0% eeneftl/Call(a) NA MODIFIED RANGE Appl""".ute,Vaa

... 10 Inlml RalaofRalum NA B..,oIUIoiIy 2.0% -4.37 NA MarkUp from Menu1lC\Urtng Cool 2.81 SimplePaybll:k N_r 10 Dlac'nl 7.0% -6.12 NA Add

..Inllalled Cool, S 53.116 Nol EnergySaved -120kBlutyr Ral. 15.0% -9.55 NA BASE CASE RANGE AnnuolzedGa. Sa •. -0.93Styr Maln1..,...,.Cool, S, NPV@ 6'" 60.OS Maln1..,...,.Cool, S, NPV @ 6'" 60.OS ARSTCOST An Ba.,S BftJCII Ga.,AnnualCooldng u.., 1000BtJtyr 1,095 GI.,AnnualCooldng u.., 1000BtJtyr gee Ga., Nan-Cooldng Pilat., 1000BtJtyr 0 Gal, Nan-Cooldng Pilat., 1000BtJtyr 0 BENSrrMTY SlI101UIoity 75'" -4.54 NA Ga.,SellClean, 1000Blutyr, 4 Cyclel 173 Ga.,BaNClean, 1000Blutyr, 4 Cyclel 173 10 Am 65'" -5.02 NA Ga.,ToIII u.., l000Blutyr 1,286 Ga.,Tolal u.., l000Blutyr 1,130 GAS COST AnSa., S BftJCII Cool 120'" -6.70 NA 150'" -6.14 NA ElecloIdIy, hlnualCooldng U.s, INthtyr 20.2 ElecloIdIy, AnnualCooking u.., INthtyr 20.2 SlI101t1loity BO% -5.55 NA ElecloIdIy, Clack, INIhtyr 31.5 ElecloIdIy, Clack, INIhtyr 31.5 laG•• 120'" -5.02 NA GAS QUANTITY AnSa., S BftJC.1 ElecloIdIy, BdCIeIltl,lNIhtyr, 4 Cyclel 0.7 ElecldcIIy, SdClean, INIhtyr, 4 Cyclel 0.7 Call ElecloIdIy, ToIal,lNIh/yr 61.5 ElecloIdIy, T oIal, INIhtyr 61.5 S..,oIU1oity BO% -5.55 NA APPUANCE UFE AnS•• , S BftJCII 10 Amount 125'" -5.07 NA Energy, AnnuIICooldng u.., 1000Bluh 1,105 Energy, hlnuslCooldng u..,l000Blutyr 1,0118 olGa., 150% -6.20 NA CookIng Ellidency 6.36'" Cooldng Ellidency 7.13'" S..,oItiloity -2 -e.o4 NA ea•• & 165'" -6.34 NA Energy,Tolalhlnualu.., 1000Blu/yr 1,477 Energy, ToIllhlnualu..,loooBlutyr 1,348 10V

.... Uta 2 -5.50 NA Madlfted 215'" -6.60 NA EnergyFoelor 5.15'" EnergyFoetor 5.64'" Chang. 

## > Y ••

, 11197 11196 1_ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S 2006 2007 2006 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I

...... 00 MODIFIED RANGE Inllalled Cool, Adcttlanll 53.116 MoInIlI1anc:e Cool 0.00 1.82 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.B2 1.62 3.10 5.01 6.19 10.47 13.65 15.03 10.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnUliNI

.. rslGuCool 7.94 6.15 6.36 6.40 6.63 6.76 6.90 0.04 8.10 0.35 0.51 0.116 0.64 10.02 10.20 10.30 10.57 10.76 10.60 0.00 AnnualElecldcIIy Cool 4.90 4.94 4.98 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.16 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.61 5.63 5.65 5.116 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

ToIliCooI. 53.116 12.64 14.01 15.16 15.34 15.53 15.71 15.90 17.45 10.50 22.02 25.43 26.116 31.38 34.76 38.76 38.38 30.46 nos 41.20 0.00 BASECASE RANGE Malnl..,...,.Cool 0.00 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 3.10 5.01 6.10 10.47 13.65 15.03 10.11 20.03 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annuli Na

..,.1GuCool 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.63 7.75 7.67 6.00 6.12 6.26 6.40 6.55 6.70 6.65 8.00 0.17 0.33 0.50 0.67 0.70 0.00 AnnualElecldcIIy Cool 4.90 4.94 4.98 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.16 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.61 5.63 5.65 5.116 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00

ToIllCooII 12.03 14.08 14.32 14.46 14.65 14.62 15.00 16.54 16.57 21.07

. 24.47 27.116 30.38 33.74 35.75 37.30 38.40 30.118 40.00 0.00 FEBUlTB NetBaloing., Madtled Rang. -53.116 -0.61 -0.113 -0.85 -0.116 -0.116 -0.60 -0.90 -0.02 -0.03 -0.05 -0.87 -0.98 -1.00 -1.02 -1.04 -l.OS -1.07 -1.00 -1.11 0.00

(I) "1I1I1alcallp_,notpraoant .a
..a oIlU1urs .aIoino./lnllfalcaal;"lnIUalcaalnag_,lI1Ilaluloing./NPVoIlU1urecotl •. DATA SET No. 1-3(from 1-1) 06/28/94Table A-17. Added Insulation for the Cabinet Envelope- -Standard Oven

COST CALCULATION DOLI.ARS ASSUMPTIONS FESUCT9 @8% DIsc. RI.
NCebilatlons ur.In Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Cost Bcenaño DOE, R.sldanIaL Rat. Case Mnualzed Net 5ev. -1.77 5/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 5ev, $ BIt/Cit DIscount Rate (Rea 6.0% 9.neIlt(Cost(a) 0.00 MODIFIED RANGE Applance Lila, Years 19 html Rate of RMim NA SanoitMty 2.0% -1.26 0.00 Mark Lt from Uwufscturtng Cost 2.81 SImpI. Paybsck Nevor to DIac'nt 7.0% -1.91 0.00 Added Installed Cost, S 19.79 Nat Energy Saved 0 k8tu/yr Rate 15.0% -3.19 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Annua5zed Gsa 9ev. 0.00 S/yr Melnlulanc. Cost, 5, NPV @8% 0.00 Nelntanance Cost, 5, NPV @8% 0.00 FiRST COST An 5ev, 5 911/Cit Gee, Annual Cooking Us., 1000 Ott/yr 1,284 Gee, Annual Cooking Us., 1000 Bti/yr t,284 Gee, Non-Cooking Pilots, 10009W/yr 1508 Gee, Non-Cooking PIlots, 10009W/yr 1,508 SENSrFMTY SsnsllIrAly 75% -1.33 0.00 Gaa,8e6C1.an,l0008tu/yr,OCyclee 0 Gaa,SeMCla.n,t000Btu/yr,OCyclu 0 toRrst 85% -1.51 0.00 Gas, Total Us., 1000 8W/yr 2,792 Gas, Total Use, 10009W/yr 2,792 GAS COST An 9ev, S 911/Cat Cost 120% -2.13 0.00 150% -2.86 0.00 SeisltMty 60% -1.77 0.00 to Gas 120% -1.71 0.00 GAS QUANTITY An 9ev, 5 811/Cit Cost SmeltMty 80% -1.77 0.00 APPUANCE LIRS An 9ev, $ 811/Cat to Aroount 125% -1.77 0.00 Energy, Annual Cooking Use, 1000 9Wd 1,284 Energy, Annual Cooking Uae, 10009W/yr 1,284 olGa,, 150% -1.77 0.00 Cooking EfficIency 5.92% Cooking EfficIency 5.92% SanoltIvIty -2 -1.89 0.00 Base & 165% -1.71 0,00 Energy, Total Annual U.., 1000 9W/yr 2,792 Energy, Total Annual Lice, 10009W/yr 2,792 to Yrs. LII. 2 -1.86 0.00 Modified 215% -1.77 0,00 Energy Fsctor 2.12% Energy Fsctor 2.72% Change

Year 1Q91 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Cost, Mdtlonal 19.19 Malntanance Coat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNatlrelGasCost 17.48 17.94 18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19,60 19.01 20.25 20.80 20.95 21.32 21.86 22.07 22.47 22.86 23.29 23.71 23.99 0,00 MnualElacttlctty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCoets 19.19 17.48 11.94 18.42 1811 10.00 19,30 1980 19.91 20.25 20.60 2005 21.32 21.66 22.01 22.47 22.86 23.20 23,11 23.99 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE MaIntenance Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNetiralGaaCost 17.46 17.94 18.42 ltlt 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.66 22.01 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 MnualEl.Ctclty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotelColt, 17.46 17.94 18.42 18,71 19.00 10,30 19.80 19,91 20,25 20.60 20,95 21.32 21,68 22.07 22.47 22.86 23.29 23.71 23.99 0,00
FESUtIB Net Savings, Modhkd Range -19.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (a) lllolklcoet posItIve, net present vekie of tuture aavlnge/lnlttalcost; It Inltlalcostn.getve, Irrifat ae*rgs/NPV offuture costs. DATA SET No.8-8 06/24 TableA-17. Added Insulation for the CabinetEnvelope- -StandardOven

COST C"LCUlATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS RESULTS @ 8'110 OtIC. RI.

....Clt:ulatton

.....In eonllanl Iggo00111

.. FuatColI 8cenlolo DOE, _don**la~** Ret. Call I\nnUlized Net S.v. -1.77Styr DISCOUNT RATE MSOV, S Elft/CIt OtlCoun1 Rale**(Re.~** 6.0'lI0 eonollt/COII(.) 0.00 MODIFIED RANGE Applonce 1..118,v
.... 111 Inlml Rala01 Rellm N" S

....oiUvlty 2.0'lI0 -1.26 0.00 M.r\(Up irani Monufaclurtng COlt 2.81 SImpleP'yblCk Naver 10 OtIC'nl 7.0'lI0 -!.III 0.00 Added 1n1l.1IedColI, S 111.78 NetEne'VY Saved okBtutyr Rale 15.0'lI0 -3.111 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Annualzed GalSay. 0.00Styr
Mllnlon""""ColI, S, NPV@ 8'110 0.00 MllntononceColI, S, NPV@ 8'110 0.00 ARSTCOST MSOV,S Elft/CIt Gil,""""aICooking U.I, 1000Blltyr 1,284 Gil,Annu.1Cooldng u.., 1000Blltyr 1,284 Gil, Non-Cooking PIlot., 1000Blltyr 1,508 G

.. , Non-CookIng PIlot., lOOOBlltyr 1,508 SENSrrMTY SonoitMty 75'110 -1.33 0.00 G••,BelClean, 1000Btutyr, 0 Cyc"," 0 Gil, 61.CIotan, 1000Btutyr, 0 Cyc"," 0 loAm 85'110 -1.51 0.00 Gil,ToIIlu.., l000Btutyr 2,7112 GI.,ToIa'u.., 1000Btutyr 2,7112 GAS COST MSOV,S Elft/CIt ColI 120'lI0 -2.13 0.00 150'lI0 -2.M 0.00 SonoitMty eO'!Io -1.77 0.00 toG

.. 120'lI0 -1.77 0.00 GAS QUANITITY MSev,S Elft/CIt COlt SonoitMty eO'!Io -1.77 0.00 "PPUNoICE LIFE M6ev,S Blt/CIt lomounl 125'110 -1.77 0.00 Ene'VY, ,."..,IICooking U.o, 1000Btul\ 1,284 En.rgy, ,."..,.,Cooking U.e, 1000Btutyr 1,284 01 G••, 150'lI0 -1.77 0.00 Cooking EfIlcIency 5.li2'ii0 Cooking El\lclency 5.li2'ii0 Sonoidvlty -2 -l.ell 0.00 ea•• & 165'110 -1.77 0.00 Energy,Tol.,InnualLIotI, 1000Btutyr 2,7112 Enlrgy,ToIIllnnuo'LIotI, 1000Btutyr 2,7112 10 V

... 1..118 2 -I.M 0.00 Modified 215'110 -1.77 0.00 EnergyFoetor 2.72'110 EnergyFoetor 2.72'110 Chongl 

## > V ••r 1l1li7 111M 

# ,_ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 200II 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 I



### ..... \0 MODIFIED RANGE InltilledColI, AddtIonII 111.711 Mllnlon""""ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annul'N

....rel G••ColI 17.411 17.114 18.42 18.71 111.00 111.30 111.80 111.111 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.M 22.07 22.47 22.M 23.211 23.71 23.l1li 0.00 Annu.1EIlclIIdtyColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ToI.ICoota 111.711 17.411 17.114 18.42 18.71 111.00 111.30 111.80 111.111 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.M 22.07 22.47 22.M 23.211 23.71 23.l1li 0.00
BASE CASE RANGE Mllnlon""""ColI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annul'N

....r.1 GilColI 17.411 17.114 18.42 18.71 111.00 19.30 111.80 111.111 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.M 22.07 22.47 22.M 23.211 23.71 23.l1li 0.00 """"alEIlclIIdty Colt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ToII'Coota 17.411 17.114 18.42 18.71 111.00 111.30 lD.80 lD.1I1 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.M 22.07 22.47 22.M 23.211 23.71 23.l1li 0.00
RESULT6 NetSaving., ModIIIed Rang. -111.711 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(.) "Inlt.1cOltpooltlw,netp
.... ont v.lll01MIl

...IIv1ngl/lnllllICOlt;"lnIUalCOltnog_,InIla'IIv1ngl/NPV01MIl

...COlt•. D"T"SET No. E-8 06/2\V114Table A-18. Added Insulation for the Cabinet Envelope- -Self-Cleaning Oven

COST CALCULATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS IESULT9 @8% DIsc. RI. All Calculations arek, Constant 1990 Dollars Fuel Coat Sc.nao DOE, Residanlal, Ref. Case Annualzsd Net 8ev. -1.77 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 9ev, S Ott/Cat DIscount Rate(R.. 6,0% Benefl/Cost(a) 0.00 MODIFEDRANGE AppIanceUle,Yeara 10 Intn,lRat.otRetjm NA SansitNtly 2.0% -1.26 0.00 MaL,fromManutsctuitngCost 2.81 BlmplePeybsck Never toDlec'nl 7.0% -1.91 0.00 MdialledCost,$ 19.79 NetEnargySav.d OkOtu/yr Rate 15.0% -3.19 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Annualzed Gas 6ev. 0.00 S/yr Maintanance Cost, 5, NPV@ 6% 89.05 Malntiance Cost, 5, NPV@ 6% 89.05 FiRST COST An 6ev, $ 88/Cat Gas, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 Ski/yr 066 Gas, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 Ski/yr 966 GasNon-CooldngPllots,I000B8J4Ir 0 Gai,Non-CooldngPllots,l0008tI/yr 0 SENSITIViTY SetsltMty 75% -1.33 0.00 Gas,SetiClean,l000Btu/yr,4Cyclel 173 Gas,SeltClean,l000BIu/yr,4Cycl.s 173 toFlrst 85% -1.51 0.00 Gas TotalUse,l000OtuIyr 1,139 Gas,TotatUee,l0005tu/yr 1,130 GASCOST AnSav,$ 88/Cat Cost 120% -2.13 0.00 , 150% -2.88 0.00 Electilcity, Annual Cooldng Use, l&,/yr 29.2 Electtlclty, Annual Cooldng Use, k%Mi/yr 26.2 SanaltMty 80% -1.77 0.00 ElectlcIty, Clock, lh/yr 31.8 Electilctty, Clock, Wih/yr 3I.5 to Gas 120% -1.77 0.00 GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, S Oil/Cat Electilcity, 5.11 Clean, lh/yr, 4 Cycle. 0.7 EloctilcIty, Sell Clean, l411/yr, 4 Cycles 0.1 Cost

Total, kWh/yr Ele.ctilclty 81.5 Electilclty,Totsl, kWh/yr 81.5 Sansltl.4ty 80% -1.77 0.00
, APPUN4CE URS An 8ev, $ 88/Cat to Antount 125% -1.17 0.00 Energy, Annual Cooking Use lOGO Btu4 1,066 Energy, Annual Cooking Us., 1000 Ski/yr 1,068 at Gas, 150% -1.77 0.00 Cooking Elllclency 7.13% Cooldng Elllctsncy 7.13% Seisltlvtty -2 -1.80 0.00 Base& 165% -lii 0.00 Energy, Total Annual Use, lOGO Ski/yr 1,340 Energy, Total Annual Use, lOGO Btu/yr 1,349 to Yrs. (it. 2 -1.86 0.00 ModIfied 215% -1.17 0.00 Energy Foctor 5.64% Energy Fector 5.64% Chang.

Veer 1991 lOGS 1099 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE h,stalled Cost, Addtlonal ¶9.79 Malntananc.Cost 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 l.82 3.19 5.01 8.19 10.47 13.65 15.93 lOll 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 Annual Natural Gas Coat 7.13 7.32 7.51 7.63 7.75 7.87 8.00 8.12 8.26 8.40 8.55 8.70 8.85 9.00 9.17 9.33 9.50 9.67 0.19 0.00 AnnualElectilclty Cost 4.90 4.94 4.98 5.03 5.08 5.13 5.18 5.23 8.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.6l 5.83 5.65 5.68 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00 TotalCoeta 19.79 12.03 14.08 14.32 14.48 14.85 14.62 15.00 16.54 18.51 21.97 24.41 27.88 30.38 33.74 35.75 37.30 35.40 39.96 40.09 0.00
BASE CASE RANGE Maint.,enceCost 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 l.82 1.82 3.19 5.01 8.10 10.47 13.65 ¶5.93 10.11 20.93 22.30 23.21 24.57 24.57 0.00 AnnualNatiralGasCost 7.13 7.32 7,51 7.83 7.75 7.87 8.00 8.12 8.26 8.40 8.55 8.70 8.85 9.00 9.17 9.33 9.50 9.67 9.10 0.00 MnualElectildtyCost 4.90 4.04 4.98 5.03 5.06 5.13 5.18 5.23 5.30 5.38 5.45 5.53 5.61 5.83 5.65 5.68 5.70 5.72 5.74 0.00 TotalCosta 12.03 14.05 14.32 14.48 ¶4.65 14.62 15.00 16.54 18.51 21.97 24.41 27.88 30.38 33.74 35.15 37.30 38.40 39.96 40.09 0.00
1SULT8 NetSavlngs,ModifiSdRsnga -19.70 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t) 0

(a) It Willal cost positive, net presult vakie of fiutur, ssvlngs/lnltlalcost; If Initial coatnegotlve. InihI .avlngs/NPV ottuturecosta. DATA SET No. E-9 00(28/94Table A-19. 2" Insulation outside of Combustion Chamber- -Standard Oven

COST CAI.CtLATION DOUJBS AS8UMPTIONS I8UUIS @6% DIsc. RI.
UCalculatIons era In Ccnstant 1990 Dollar, Fuel Cost Scenaño DOE, Rsslde1aI, Rat, Case Annualied Net 8ev. -0.21 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 8ev, S Bit/Cat Discount Rate (R.a 6.0% Beneftt/Cost(e) CM MODIFIED RANGE Applance UI., Years 19 mImI Ratsof Retim -0.1% SaaItMty 2.0% -0.07 0.81 MsrkttromMa,u?scturlngCosI 2.51 Slrnplepsybsck Never toD(ec'nt 7.0% -0.25 0.52 Added lnstsfled Cost, $ 5.42 Nd Energy Saved 38 kB*u/yr Rate 15.0% -0.81 0.30 BASE CASE RANGE Annualzed Gas 8ev. 0.27 S/yr Malnlaiancs Cost, 5, NPV @6% 0.00 Malntmance Cost, 5, NPV @6% 0.00 F1FIET COST An 8ev, S OIl/Cit G.s,ArinualCooldng Use, 1000 Bti/yr 1,246 Gas, AnnuslCootdng Us, 1000 NJ/yr I,284 Gas, Non-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 8th/yr 1,508 Gas, Nan-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 Osi/yr 1,508 8ENSITMTY Sdth4ty 75% -0.09 0.75 Gss,SeSClsan,l0008tu/yr,OCyclss 0 Oas,8.NCIsan,1000Blu/yr,00yclss 0 toFlrst 85% -0.14 0.86 Gas,Totel Use, l0008tujyr 2,754 Gi., Total Use, l0008tu/yr 2,792 GAS COST An 8ev, S Blt/Cst Cast 120% -0.31 0.47 150% -0.45 0.38 8tslIMty 50% -0.27 0.45 to Gas 120% -0.16 0.88 GAS QUANTITY An 8ev, S 85/Cat Cost SmeftMty 80% -0.27 0.45 APPUANCE UFE An 8ev, S Ba/Cat to Amount 125% -0.14 0.70 Energy, PnnuelCooldng Us, 1000Btu/ 1,246 Energy, Annual Cooldng Use, 1000 Stir/yr 1,284 alGae, 150% -0.07 0.85 Cooldng EfficIency 6.10% Cooldag EfficIency 892% SensltMty -2 -0.25 0.52 Bas.& l65% -0.03 0.93 Enlrgy,Total Annual Us., 1000810/yr 2,754 Energy, Total Annual Use, 1000 Otu/yr 2,792 toYrs. UI. 2 -0.18 0.80 ModIf.d 215% 0.10 1.21 Energy Fsctor 2.78% Energy Fsctat 2.12% Change

Ys.r 1997 I996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Cost, Adaltlonal 5.42 Makitetwmce Cost 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Mau.lNs*iralGaaCcst 11.24 11.70 16.17 18.45 18.14 19.03 19.33 19.64 19.97 20.32 20.81 21.03 21.39 21.77 22.11 22.56 22,91 23.38 23.66 0.00 Annual ElactElty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCosta 5.42 17.24 17.70 18.11 18.45 18,74 19.03 19.33 19.64 19.91 20.32 20.87 21.03 21,39 21.77 22.17 22.56 22.97 23.38 23.86 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Mahntwance Cost 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNatiralGasCoet 11.48 17.94 -18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.01 22,47 22.88 23.29 23,71 23.99 0.00 Annual Ehactaclly Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCosts 17,48 17.94 18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20,95 21.32 21.68 22.07 22,47 22.68 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 FESLLTS Net8avtngs,Moll*.dRenge -5.42 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.21 0.28 0.28 0.29 0,29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0,32 0.32 0.33 0.00 (a) IllnNalcast positIve, net present vakas of future saningeMllalcost; It Initial coetnsgmlv., InItal savlngs/NPV of *rlureco.ls. DATA SET No. E-4 (A-I & C-i) 06/2'94 Table A-19. 2" InsulationoutsideofCombustion Chamber- -StandardOven

COST CALCUATION DOllARS ASSUMPTIONS RESUI.TS @ 8'"Dloc. RI. Al! C.lculallono .reln Conllant 1090Oolla

... Fueleo.t**Sceno~o** DOE. RMld81lal. ReI. C

... AnnualzedNot S••. -0.21 SlY' DISCOUNT RATE An So •• S Bft/CII Dlocaunl Rate(Raa9 8.0"- eeneftt/Colt(0) O.se MODIFIED RANGE ApplencaUIe. Y.I

... 111 Int.,1 Rat.01 Aatlm -0.1'" S,,"ltlvtly 2.0"- -0.07 0.81 MorieUp '""" MA'IIIIa:turing eo.t 2.81 SimplePaybock Naver toDloc'nt 7.0'" -0.25 0.52 Added !nllaledeo.t. $ 5.42 NotEnargy Saved 38 kBtuIY' Rato 15.0"- -0.81 0.30 IWIE CASE RANGE AnnualzedGo.Sa •. 0.27 SlY' Malnt81encO eo.t. S. NPV@ 8'" 0.00 MaInI81encoeo.t.S. NPV@ 8"- 0.00 ARSTCOST An Say.S Bft/CII Gil.AnnualCooking Uoa. 1000 !!lilY' 1.248 G

...AnnuaICooking Uoa.IOOO!!llIY' 1.284 Gil.Non-CookIng PlIotI. 1000 !!lilY' 1.508 GI•• Nan-CookIng Pilot•• 1000 !!lilY' 1.508 SENSITMTY S81l1ltMty 75"" -0.011 0.75 Gil.S.ICIe

.... IOOOBtufY'. OCyc"'" 0 GI•• S.ICIe

.... 1000BtuIY'. 0 Cyc"," 0 toAm 85"" -0.14 0.88 Ga•• Total Uoa. 1000BtufY' 2.754 Ga•• TaIIIl Uoa. 1000BtuIY' 2.7112 GAS COST An SOy. S Bft/CII eo.t 120"- -0.31 0.47 150"- -0.45 0.38 S81I1lUvtIy 80% -0.27 0.45 to G•• 120"- -0.18 0.88 GAS QUANTITY AnSa•• S Bft/CII Coli S81t11M1y 80% -0.27 0.45 APPUHlCE UFE AnSa•• S Bft/CII 10Amount 125"" -0.14 0.70 Energy.llnnualCooking Uoa. 1000Btufl 1.248 Enorgy.lnnUalCooldng Uoa.IOOOBtuIY' 1.284 of G••, 150"- -0.07 0.85 Cooking EtIIcIanc:y 8.10"- CookIng EtIIcIanc:y 5.112"- S81I1lUvtIy -2 -0.25 0.52 8018& 185"" -0.03 0.113 Energy.Tot.lllnnualUoa. 1000BtuIY' 2.754 Energy. TotlllnnUalUoa. 1000BtuIY' 2.7112 loY

.... UIe 2 -0.18 0.80 ModI.ed 215"" 0.10 1.21 

## > EnorgyF1C1o< 2.78"- EnergyFlC1o< 2.72"" Ch

...g. 

### N I-' Y

..

, 1l1li7 I- I- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 200II 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017

MODIFIED RANGE !nlloledeo.t.AddtIonal 5.42 Malnl81encoeo.t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNI",.IGI.eo.t 17.24 17.70 18.17 18.45 18.74 10.03 10.33 10.84 10.07 20.32 20.87 21.03 21.311 21.77 22.17 22.se 22.07 23.38 23.88 0.00 AnnuliElectolclly eo.t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TotaICooII 5.42 17.24 17.70 18.17 18.45 18.74 10.03 111.33 10.84 10.07 20.32 20.87 21.03 21.311 21.77 22.17 22.se 22.07 23.38 23.88 0.00
IWIECASE RANGE MaIntonenco eo.t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNa","1 Gileo.t 17.48 17.114 '18.42 18.71 10.00 10.30 10.80 10.01 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.20 23.71 23.l1li 0.00 AnnuliElectolclly eo.t 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TaIIIlCooII 17.48 17.114 18.42 18.71 10.00 111.30 10.80 10.111 20.25 20.80 20.115 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.20 23.71 23.l1li 0.00 RESUlTS Nat Saving'.ModItIed Rang. -5.42 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.00

(0) "InllolColipolllUva. natp....,1

......01MIlre 18Y1ngo,1nl1lllcool; KInItIIICOOlnoglllvo.InIIII18Y1ngolNPV01MIlrecooll. DATASET No. E-4(A-l &C-l) 08!2t\'MTable A-20. Reduced Conduction Losses- -Pyrolytic Oven Construction- -Standard Oven

COST CALCUlATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS FESULTS @8% DIsc. RI. At Catutetloni erein Constant 1990 Dollar, FUel Cost Scenailo DOE, RssIdcnSsI, Ref. Case Annualzed Net 5ev. -685 S/yr DISCOUNT RATE An 5ev, $ 8ff/Cat DIscount Rate (Real) 6.0% BenetljCost(a) 0.19 MODIFIED RANGE Applenco UI., Year, IS Intrnl Rate of Retim -9.0% 8msltMty 2.0% -4.39 0.27 MakLktrccnManufscturtngCoat 2.81 SlmplePaybsck Never toDtsc'nt 7.0% -7.52 0.17 AddedlnstaffedCoat,$ 93,82 NetEnergySaved 2l7kBtu/yr Rate 15.0% -13.63 0.10 BASE CASE RANGE Mnuelzed Gas 5ev. 1.56 S/yr Malntaranca Coat, 8, NPV@ 8% 0.00 Msintaianco Cost, S, NPV@ 0% 0.00 FIRST COST An 8ev, S Ba/Cat Gas, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 BtI/yr 1,068 Gas, Annual Cooldng Us., 1000 811/yr 1,284 Ga,,PJon-Cooldng Pilots, 1000811/yr 1,508 Gsa, Non-Cooldng PIlots, 1000 Eli/yr 1,508 SENSITIVITY SsisftMty 75% -4.75 0.25 Gas, 0.11 Clean, 1000 Btu/yr, 0Cycles 0 Gas, 8.11 Clean, 1000 Btu/yr, 0 Cycles 0 ' to FIrst 85% -5.59 0.22 Gas,Total Us., l000Btu4rr 2,816 Oss,Total Uao, l000Blu/yr 2,792 GAS COST An 8ev, 5 Ba/Cat Cost 120% -8.53 0.15 150% -11.05 0.12 SansilivIty 80% -7.18 0.15 to Ga. 120% -654 0.22 GAS OUANTTT'Y An Say, $ Bfl/Cst Coat 5osltMty 80% -7.10 0.15 APPUANCE LIFE An 8ev, $ Ba/Cat to knount 125% -6.40 0.23 Energy, Annual Cooldng U*, 1000 Btufr 1,068 Energy, Annual CookIng Use, 1000 Blu/yr 1284 olGa., 150% -6.07 0.28 CookIng EfficIency 7.12% CookIng EffIcIency 5.92% s.lslam -2 -7.41 0.17 Base& 165% -5.84 0.31 Energy, Total Annual Use, 1000 Eli/yr 2,578 Energy, Total Annual Us., 1000 Blu/yr 2,792 to Yra. LIfe 2 -6.40 0.20 Moditled 215% -5.06 0.40 Energy Fsctor 2.95% Energy Ftor 2.72% Change

Year 1097 1998 1900 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

MODIFIED RANGE Installed Coat, Addtlonal 93.82 Malnteiance Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnualNatiralGasCost 18.12 1655 1699 17.28 17.53 17.80 16.08 10.36 16.08 19.00 19.33 19.66 20.00 20.36 20.73 21.10 21.48 21.87 22.13 0.00 Annual EIsCtdCIty Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lotalCosts 93.82 16.12 16.55 18.99 17.28 17.53 t7.80 18.08 16.36 18.88 19.00 19.33 19.66 20.00 20.30 20.73 21.10 21.48 21.87 22.13 0.00 BASE CASE RANGE Malntanance Coat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnuelNatiralOasCout 17.48 17.94 18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.88 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.71 23.99 0.00 MnualElsctdcttyCost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TotalCosla 17.48 17.94 18.42 18.71 19.00 19.30 19.60 19.91 20.25 20.60 20.95 21.32 21.68 22.07 22.47 22.88 23.29 23.11 23.99 0.00 IESILTS N.t8aatng.,UodlkdRange -93.82 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.45 1.47 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.57 1.60 1.62 1.85 168 1.71 1.74 1.77 1.81 1.84 1.88 0.00 l')

(a) If InlisI cost posItIve, net preaant vakie of future sa*rgsfinltlalcost; If Initial costnegative, InitIal uvlngs/NPV of future costs. DATA SET No. G-l 0e/2a'94 TableA-20. Reduced Conduction Losses

- - PyroJytic Oven Construction

- - Standard Oven

COST CALCUlATION DOLLARS ASSUMPTIONS "'SUllS @ 8% Dloc. RI.
AI Cal:ulatlon•• reln Conltant tlKKl Dalla

.. FUel Coot Ilcenado DOE, _d..".I, FIoI. Ca•• AnnualZed No! Sav. -8.85 Sty, DISCOUNT RATE AnSav, S Blt/CIt Dlocount Rato**(Aaa~** 8.0% Benont/Colt(0) 0.111 MODIFIED RANGE Applonce Ufo, Y

.... til Intml Rate01 Rellm -11.0% SIIl.ltl-.1ty 2.0% -4.311 0.27 Mlrkl.\> !rom M..,ut&:luling Coot 2.81 SimplePaybEk Novo, to Dloc'nt 7.0% -7.52 0.t7 Addad Inltaltod Coot, S 113.82 No! EnergySaved 217 kBtuty' Rata 15.0% -13.83 0.10 BASE CASE RANGE Annualzed GalSav. 1.58Sty, Malnt..,ancoCoot, S, NPV@ 8% 0.00 MaInt..,ancoCoot, S, NPV@ 8% 0.00 FIRST COST AnSav, S Blt/CIt G

.. ,Annuli! CooIdng lJae, t000BlJty, t,OII8 GI.,AnnuliCooking lJae, 1000BlJty, t,284 G

.. , Non-Cooking Pilot., toooBlJty, t,508 GI., Non-CookIng Pilot., 1000BlJty, 1,508 SENSITIVITY SIIlIIttvIty 75"" -4.75 0.25 Gal, s.rCleen, 1000Btuty" 0 Cycle. 0 GI., s.rClaan, 1000Btuty" 0 Cyclao 0 to Arot 85"" -5.511 0.22 Ga.,TotollJae, loooBtuty' 2,578 GI.,TotallJae, loooBtuty' 2,7112 GAS COST AnSav,S Bft/C1t Coot 120"" -8.53 0.15 150% -11.05 0.12 S..,IlU-.1ty 80% -7.18 0.15 to Gal 120"'- -8.54 0.22 GAS QUANTITY AnSav, S Blt/CIt Coot SIIlIIttvIty 80% -7.18 0.15 APPUANCE UFE AnSav,S Blt/CIt tomount 125"" -8.48 0.23 Energy, AnnuliCooIdng lJae, 1000BtuA 1,0118 Energy,AnnualCooking lJae, 1000Btuty, 1,284 ofG••, 150"" -8.07 0.28 Cooking Ellldency 7.12"'- Cooking EIIIdency 11.112"'- SIIlIlH-.1ty -2 -7.41 0.17 ea•• & 185"" -5.84 0.31 Energy,TotllAnnulllJae, 1000 Btuty, 2,578 Energy, TotolAnnuII!lJae, 1000Btuty, 2,7112 toY

...Ufo 2 -8.40 0.20 Modl'ad 215"" -5.08 0.40 EnergyFlCtor 2.115"" EnergyFlCtor 2.72"'- ChIng. 

## > I 

### vo., 10117 I_ I_ 2000 200t 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2017 N N

MODIFIED RANGE 1n1t.11odCoot,Addtfonll 113.82 Malntonanco Coot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnuliNIll,alGI.Coot 18.12 18.55 18.011 17.211 17.53 17.110 18.05 18.311 111.08 111.00 111.33 111.1la 20.00 20.311 20.73 21.10 21.48 21.87 22.13 0.00 AnnuliElocloIcIty Coot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TotllCoatl 113.82 111.12 18.55 111.011 17.211 17.53 17.80 111.05 111.311 18.1la 111.00 111.33 111.1la 20.00 20.311 20.73 21.10 21.48 21.87 22.13 0.00
BASE CASE RANGE Malntonanco Coot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AnnuliN"ll,"1Ga.Coot 17.48 17.114 111.42 111.71 111.00 111.30 111.110 111.111 20.25 20.110 20.115 21.32 21.1la 22.07 22.47 22.1la 23.211 23.71 23.011 0.00 AnnuliElocloIcIty Coot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TotllCoat. 17.48 17.114 18.42 18.71 111.00 111.30 111.110 111.111 20.25 20.110 20.115 21.32 21.1la 22.07 22.47 22.118 23.211 23.71 23.011 0.00
"'SUlTS NilSaving., ModtIad Rang. -113.112 1.311 1.311 1.43 1.45 1.47 1.50 1.52 1.54 1.57 1.110 1.112 1.115 1.118 1.71 1.74 l.n 1.111 1.114 1.1la 0.00

(I) KlnlilicollpoilU

.. ,nilpmont VI"O01 future oavlngo(lnltlalcoot;KIntUllcootnag_,lnIlaloavIng./NPV01 futurecoot•. DATASET NO.G-l 08/2Pt114

### Appendix B

Oral Testimony Given by D. K. Landstrom to DOE

April and June 1994 Appendix B Oral Testimony Given by D. K. Landstrom to DOE April and June 1994

### B-i



### Oral Testimony DOE Public Hearings on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning the Residential Range/Oven Efficiency Standard

"Eight Products Rulemaking" (Docket No. EE-RM-90-201) April 5-7, 1994 Washington D.C.
Speaker Information

Name: D. Karl Landstrom Employer: Battelle Columbus Operations

505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693 Tel: (614) 424-4803 Fax: (614) 424-3534 Position: Deputy for Administration of the Gas Appliance Technology Center

(GATC) Operations at Battelle. The GATC receives its funding from the Gas Research Institute (Chicago, Illinois). Representing: Technical analyses performed on behalf of the Gas Research Institute

(Rodney C. Rinholm, GRI Project Monitor) pertinent to DOE's rulemaking concerning ranges/ovens. B-1



### Oral Testimony DOE Public Hearings on the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking Concerning the Residential Range/Oven Efficiency Standard

Speaker Infonnation

Name: Employer:

Position:

Representing: 

### "Eight Products Rulemaking" (Docket No. EE-RM-90-201) April 5-7, 1994 Washington D.C.

D. Karl Landstrom
Battelle Columbus Operations 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693 Tel: (614) 424-4803 Fax: (614) 424-3534 Deputy for Administration ofthe Gas Appliance Technology Center (GATC) Operations at Battelle. The GATC receives its funding from the Gas Research Institute (Chicago, Illinois).
Technical analyses performed on behalf ofthe Gas Research Institute (Rodney C. Rinholm, GR! Project Monitor) pertinent 

### to DOE's rulemaking concerning ranges/ovens.

### B-2

Oral Comments

I am Karl Landstrom, a projects manager at Battelle's Columbus Operations. I am the manager of a study funded by Gas Research Institute in Chicago to analyze the DOE design options described in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for - kitchen ranges and ovens that was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1990 (Vol. 55, No. 189). I am speaking in my capacity as manager of that study.

I want to thank the Department of Energy for the opportunity today to comment on the portion of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that covers kitchen ranges and ovens. The DOE is to be congratulated for the extensive technical analysis that supports the NOPR and gathering the best information that was available at the time the document was written. Since that time, GRI has contributed to the technical data base available for rulemaking under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) for water heaters,' furnaces and boilers, and kitchen ranges and ovens.3 The study I will speak of today is limited to kitchen ranges and ovens and is intended to provide additional analysis that we request DOE consider before the publication of the final rule. The study provides up-to-date and accurate information on the various design options for increasing the energy efficiency of residential ranges and ovens.

During an early phase of the study, GRI established a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of manufacturers, trade associations, and gas utility representatives to guide the project. Work was conducted to develop survey data, analytical models, cost data, and to evaluate experimental modifications to existing ranges to assess the technological feasibility and economic justification of the design options published by DOE in the ANOPR. The intent of the analytical and experimental investigations was to assure that the best data available is used in the rulemaking process. Areas of greatest data needs were identified and a comprehensive and careful analysis was undertaken.

The work was carried out by an expert team made up of staff from Battelle Columbus Operations, American Gas Association Laboratories (A.G.A.L.), and Arthur D. Little Corporation (ADL) under funding of GRI. The TAG helped to guide the project by assuring realistic costs, approaches and issues were considered.

The study approach was to use the same analysis methodology applied by DOE'scontractors in past NAECA rulemaking cycles. This included assessments of (1) the technical feasibility of the DOE-specified design options, (2) the practical application of the design options, (3) the effects of the design options on appliance efficiency, (4) the impacts of the design options on installation and appliance utility, and (5) the life-cycle cost impacts on the consumer of the design options. B-2 

### OralComrnents
I am Karl Landstrom, a projects manager at Battelle's Columbus Operations. I am the manager ofa study funded by Gas Research Institute in Chicago to analyze the DOE design options described in the Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for kitchen ranges and ovens that was published in the 

### Federal Register on September 28, 1990 (Vol. 55, No. 189). I am speaking in my capacity as manager ofthat study.
I want to thank the Department ofEnergy for the opportunity today to comment on the portion ofthe Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that covers kitchen ranges and ovens. The DOE is to be congratulated for the extensive technical analysis that supports the NOPR and gathering the best information that was available at the time the document was written. Since that time, GRI has contributed to the technical data base available for rulemaking under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) for water heaters,(1) 

### furnaces and boilers,(2) 

### and kitchen ranges and ovens.(3) 

### The study I will speak of today is limited to kitchen ranges and ovens and is intended to provide additional analysis that we request DOE consider before the publication ofthe final rule. The study provides up-to-date and accurate information on the various design options for increasing the energy efficiency ofresidential ranges and ovens. During an early phase ofthe study, GRI established a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) consisting ofmanufacturers, trade associations, and gas utility representatives to 

### guide the project. Work was conducted to develop survey data, analytical models, cost data, and to evaluate experimental modifications to existing ranges to assess the technological feasibility and economicjustification ofthe design options published by DOE in the ANOPR. The intent ofthe analytical and experimental investigations was to assure that the best data available is used in the rulemaking process. Areas ofgreatest data needs were identified and a comprehensive and careful analysis was undertaken.
The work was carried out by an expert team made up of stafffrom Battelle Columbus Operations, American Gas Association Laboratories (A.G.A.L.), and Arthur D. little Corporation (ADL) under funding ofGRI. The TAG helped to guide the project by assuring realistic costs, approaches and issues were considered.
The study approach was to use the same analysis methodology applied by DOE's contractors in past NAECA rulemaking cycles. This included assessments of (1) the technical feasibility ofthe DOE-specified design options, (2) the practical application ofthe design options, (3) the effects ofthe design options on appliance efficiency, (4) the impacts ofthe design options on installation and appliance utility, and (5) the life-cycle cost impacts on the consumer ofthe design options.B-3 

### An interim report3 was published in July 1993 and reviewed with DOE staff at a meeting in September of 1993. Previous contact with DOE was used to assure that the analysis methodology was consistent with the DOE test procedures for ranges and ovens. We also verified that the life-cycle costing parameters were consistent with DOE procedures and basic assumptions. Due to time constraints, it is understandable that DOE was unable to incorporate the results of our study into the NOPR. However, we respectfully request that this information be considered and analyzed before a final rule is published.

Before I comment on specific design options, I would like to address several general issues that impact the economic, safety, and utility attributes of the gas range.

Metered experimental data gathered on Annual Gas Cooking Energy Consumption usage factors show much lower usage than in the past. This is partially a result of lifestyle changes, more use of microwave ovens and other new convenience cooking products. In our interim report, we submitted data to DOE from an extensive metered study of gas ranges and ovens that was conducted from 1990 to 1992. This study determined that Annual Gas Cooking Energy Consumption usage factors have dramatically decreased from the baseline 1977 to 1988 data used in the DOE's analysis. Also, the number of self-clean cycles assumed by DOE seem unrealistic for current levels of oven use. The metered data we have gathered is consistent with that of other recent sources. We request that this additional data be considered in the rulemaking process.

We are in general agreement with the DOE concerning the life-cycle cost methodology; however, manufacturers' data do not support the DOE's first cost assumptions for many of the design options. In addition, we believe that the life-cycle cost data should be updated by DOE to use current DOE Energy Information Administration estimates of future fuel cost projections rather than 1991 estimated projections. Other criteria that need to be adequately addressed are the effects of the design options on cooking quality, consumer safety, and product utility.

Let me now address a few specifics on the design options themselves. Of the 12 range and oven design options originally proposed by the DOE, 10 are applicable to gas-fired ranges (Figure 1).

I will briefly describe the areas where the technical data in the GRI report may be used to more accurately assess the design options. We plan to comment more fully in the written submission.

A. Thermostatically Controlled Gas Burners. The GRI analysis confirms the DOE analysis that the use of thermostatically controlled burners would not result in an efficiency increase and should not be considered. B-3 

### An interim report(3) was published in July 1993 

### and reviewed with DOE staffat a meeting in September of 1993. 

### Previous contact with DOE was used to assure that the analysis methodology was consistent with the DOE test procedures for ranges and ovens. We also verified that the life-cycle costing parameters were consistent with DOE procedures and basic assumptions. Due to time constraints, it is understandable that DOE was unable to

-- incorporate the results ofour study into the NOPR. However, we respectfully request that this information be considered and analyzed before a final rule is published.
Before I comment on specific design options, I would like to address several general issues that impact the economic, safety, and utility attributes ofthe gas range. Metered experimental data gathered on Annual Gas Cooking Energy Consumption usage factors show much lower usage than in the past. This is partially a result oflifestyle changes, more use ofmicrowave ovens and other new convenience cooking products. In our interim report, we submitted data to DOE from an extensive metered study ofgas ranges and ovens that was conducted from 1990 

### to 1992. 

### This study determined that Annual 

### Gas Cooking Energy Consumption usage factors have dramatically decreased from the baseline 1977 

### to 1988 

### data used in the DOE's analysis. Also, the number of self-clean cycles assumed by DOE seem unrealistic for current levels ofoven use. The metered data we have gathered is consistent with that ofother recent sources. We request that this additional data be considered in the rulemaking process. We are in general agreement with the DOE concerning the life-cycle cost methodology; however, manufacturers' data do not support the DOE's first cost assumptions for many ofthe design options. In addition, we believe that the life-cycle cost data should be 

### updated by DOE to use current DOE Energy Information Administration estimates of future fuel cost projections rather than 1991 

### estimated projections. Other criteria that need to be adequately addressed are the effects ofthe design options on cooking quality, consumer safety, and product utility.
Let me now address a few specifics on the design options themselves. Ofthe 12 

### range and oven design options originally proposed by the DOE, 10 are applicable to gas-frred ranges (Figure 1).


### I will briefly describe the areas where the technical data in the GRI report may be used to more accurately assess the design options. We plan to comment more fully in the written submission.
A. 

### Thermostatically Controlled Gas Burners. The GRI analysis confirms the DOE analysis that the use ofthermostatically controlled burners would not result in an efficiency increase and should not be considered.

### B-4 B. Insulation/Reflective Surfaces. I will combine Design Options E (Improved Insulation of theCabinet), H (Insulation with Lower Conductivities), and I (Use of Reflective Surfaces) with Option B in the following discussion, with separate observations for cooktops and ovens, as has been done in the DOE support document.

1. Gas Cooktops - Insulation. For gas cooktops, experimental data confirm the DOE analysis that added insulation would not result in an efficiency increase.

2. Gas Cooktops

- 

### Reflective Surfaces. For gas cooktops,experimental data confirm that the efficiency increase resulting from adding reflective surfaces is very small and, infact, show that the increase is considerably smaller than that assumed by DOE. A. Thermostatically Controlled Gas Burners B. Insulation/Reflective Surfaces E. Improved Insulation of the Cabinet F. Reduced Vent Size G. Reduced Conduction Losses H. Insulation with Lower Conductivities I. Use of Reflective Surfaces J. Reduction of Thermal Mass K. Forced Convection During Cleaning L. Oven Separator (Design Options C and D applied to electric ranges only and were not evaluated in the study.) 

### Figure 1. Table of DOE design options as

published in the ANOPR. 3. Ovens - Insulation. The experimental data confirm that adding insulation to a standard oven to the level currently used in self-cleaning ovens will result in a slight increase in efficiency. The data show much smaller increases than that assumed by DOE. Increasing/improving the insulation level beyond that already used in self-cleaning ovens doesnot result in a significant efficiency increase, based on the DOE test procedure. The experimental data indicated that a slight efficiency increase could be achieved by adding additional insulation in the broiler compartment of a conventional gas oven. This option does not exist for a self-cleaning oven. Increasing the thickness of insulation to 4 inches as proposed by DOE would reduce the utility of an oven by reducing its size and capacity, would require extensive retooling by manufacturers, would increase first costs, and would not result in a significant efficiency increase. Life-cycle cost calculations indicate that adding insulation would not be cost-effective.

4. Ovens - Reflective Surfaces. The data show that adding reflective surfaces in gas ovens does not result in an efficiency increase. Measurements show an efficiency decrease resulting from this option.

F. Reduced Vent Size. The experimental data show that reducing the vent in a gas oven will not result in a significant energy savings. As the vent te is decreased by reducing the vent size to where the energy savings begin to increase dramatically, it was B. InsulationfRefiective Surfaces. I will combine Design Options E (Improved Insulation ofthe Cabinet), H (Insulation with Lower Conductivities), and I (Use ofReflective Surfaces) with Option B in the following discussion, with separate observations for cooktops and ovens, as has been done in the DOE support document.
1. 

### Gas Cooktops

- Insulation. For gas cooktops, experimental data confirm the DOE analysis that added insulation would not result in an efficiency increase.
2. Gas Cooktops

- Reflective Surfaces. For gas cooktops, experimental data confirm that the efficiency increase resulting from adding reflective surfaces is very small and, in fact, show that the increase is considerably smaller than that assumed by DOE. B-4



### A. Thermostatically Controlled Gas Burners B. Insulation/Reflective Surfaces E. Improved Insulation ofthe Cabinet F. Reduced Vent Size G. Reduced Conduction Losses H. Insulation with Lower Conductivities I. 

### Use ofReflective Surfaces 

### J. Reduction ofThermal Mass K. Forced Convection During Cleaning L. 

### Oven Separator (Design Options C and D applied to electric ranges only and were not evaluated in the study.) 

### Figure 1. 

### Table ofDOE design options as published in the ANOPR.
3. Ovens

- Insulation. The experimental data confirm that adding insulation to a standard oven to the level currently used in self-cleaning ovens will result in a slight increase in efficiency. The data show much smaller increases than that assumed by DOE. Increasing/improving the insulation level beyond that already used in self-cleaning ovens does not result in a significant efficiency increase, based on the DOE test procedure. The experimental data indicated that a slight efficiency increase could be achieved by adding additional insulation 

### in the broiler compartment ofa conventional gas oven. This option does not exist for a self-cleaning oven. Increasing the thickness ofinsulation to 4 inches as proposed by DOE would reduce the utility ofan oven by reducing its size and capacity, would require extensive retooling by manufacturers, would increase first costs, and would not result in a significant efficiency increase. Life-cycle cost calculations indicate that adding insulation would not be cost-effective.
4. Ovens

- Reflective Surfaces. The data show that adding reflective surfaces in gas ovens does not result in an efficiency increase. Measurements show an efficiency decrease resulting from this option.
F. Reduced Vent Size. The experimental data show that reducing the vent size 

### in a gas oven will not result in a significant energy savings. As the vent rate is decreased by reducing the vent size to where the energy savings begin to increase dramatically, it 

### was

### B-5

observed that the carbon monoxide levels also increased rapidly and venting through the door seals occurred. At reduced vent sizes that provide acceptable combustion, low surface temperatures, and no venting around the door seal, energy consumption tests using the DOE test procedure indicated no significant energy savings. We believe that this option needs further analysis by DOE.

G. Reduced Conduction Losses. Experimental data confirm the DOE analysisthat shows there is no significant efficiency increase from adopting this option for selfcleaning ovens. Experimental data also show a slight increase in efficiency is possible if a conventional oven were built like a self-cleaning oven. However, analysis indicates this would not be cost-effective.

.1. Reduction of Thermal Mass. Experimental data confirm the DOE analysisthat reduction of thermal mass will increase the efficiency; however, experimental measurements indicate a much smaller efficiency improvement than that assumed by DOE. The GRI analysis and subsequent manufacturer consensus indicate that the magnitude of thermal mass reduction assumed by DOE is not possible without serious degradation in range strength and durability, particularly for shipping. Reduction of thermal mass also raises questions of product safety and stability. We request that this option be re-examined.

K. Forced Convection Durin2 Cleaning. We believe that the DOE has changed this design option and now considers forced convection as a new design option that was not published in the ANOPR. I will discuss this under New Design Options.

L. Oven Separator. The analysis shows that the oven separator should not be considered as a design option due to high cost, consumer utility, and safety concerns. New Design Options

The DOE has introduced several new design options that were not included in the ANOPR publication. Thus, we have not had an opportunity to examine these options in detail. I will make a few preliminary remarks concerning these options. We plan to submit additional information in the written comment.

1. Remove Oven Door Window. We plan to examine the assumptions used byDOE in determining the heat loss associated with removing the oven door window. Elimination of the door window will remove a feature appreciated by cooks who prepare delicate food items such as souffles and many types of cakes. The window allows inspection without door opening that may cause failure or unacceptable results for these foods. We believe that the DOE should re-examine this option with regard to the potential increase in efficiency and reduction in utility that might result.

2. Electronic I2nition. As the DOE noted, actual burner efficiency is not affected by eliminating the standing pilot. Experimental data confirm that the electricity B-5 

### observed that the carbon monoxide levels also increased rapidly and venting through the door seals occurred. At reduced vent sizes that provide acceptable combustion, low surface temperatures, and no venting around the door seal, energy consumption tests using the DOE test procedure indicated no significant energy savings. We believe that this option needs further analysis by DOE.
G. Reduced Conduction Losses. Experimental data confirm the DOE analysis that shows there is no significant efficiency increase from adopting this option for selfcleaning ovens. Experimental data also show a slight increase in efficiency is possible ifa conventional oven were built like a self-cleaning oven. However, analysis indicates this would not be cost-effective.


### J. Reduction ofThennal Mass. Experimental data confirm the DOE analysis that reduction of thermal mass will increase the efficiency; however, experimental measurements indicate a much smaller efficiency improvement than that assumed by DOE. The GRI 

### analysis and subsequent manufacturer consensus indicate that the magnitude of thermal mass reduction assumed by DOE is not possible without serious degradation in range strength and durability, particularly for shipping. Reduction ofthermal mass also raises questions of product safety and stability. We request that this option be re-examined.
K. Forced Convection Durinl: Cleaninl:. We believe that the DOE has changed this design option and now considers forced convection as a new design option that was not published in the ANOPR. I will discuss this under New Design Options.
L. Oven Separator. The analysis shows that the oven separator should not be considered as a design option due to high cost, consumer utility, and safety concerns. New Desil:n Options
The DOE has introduced several new design options that were not included in the ANOPR publication. Thus, we have not had an opportunity to examine these options in 

### detail. I will make a few preliminary remarks concerning these options. We plan to submit additional information in the written comment. 

### 1. Remove Oven Door Window. We plan to examine the assumptions used by DOE in determining the heat loss associated with removing the oven door window. Elimination ofthe door window will remove a feature appreciated by cooks who prepare delicate food items such as souffles and many types ofcakes. The window allows inspection without door opening that may cause failure or unacceptable results for these foods. We believe that the DOE should re-examine this option with regard to the potential increase in efficiency and reduction in utility that might result.
2. Electronic Il:nition. As the DOE noted, actual burner efficiency is not affected by eliminating the standing pilot. Experimental data confirm that the electricity

### B-6

consumption of spark-ignition systems is negligible for gas cooktops. If "gb" type ignition systems are used, the electrical consumption should be considered.

3. Improved Door Seals. Preliminary analysis shows that the magnitude of efficiency achievable by improving door seals for gas ovens is much lower than that assumed - by DOE. Under ANSI standards, to prevent excessive surface temperatures, door seals arenot allowed to vent. This is not a major heat loss source. We request that this option be reexamined. 4. Forced Convection. Forced convection gas ovens are a very small fraction of the residential market and are extremely expensive when compared to conventional ovens. Past efforts by manufacturers to produce a low-cost gas convection oven were unsuccessful, since the convection process often interferes with the combustion process itself, requiring isolation of the combustion process from the oven cavity. This increases costs dramatically. It is unlikely that the energy savings will compensate for the realistic cost increase to manufacture a gas convection oven. In addition, convection oven cooking results in quality and appearance differences when compared to conventional oven cooking. Some of these differences may not be acceptable to the consumer. These factors have not been adequately addressed in the DOE analysis.

5. Sealed Burners. Experimental data confirm that sealed burners should not be included as a design option. The data for these burners show little or no efficiency increase. We plan to address this issue further in our written comments.

6. Reduce Excess Air at Burner for Gas Cooktops. Preliminary analysis shows that the magnitude of efficiency increase achievable with this option is unknown and not measurable at this time. We do not believe that the engineering analysis cited supports the DOE conclusion. Such a burner as described by DOE does not exist on the market and there are no designs that can be evaluated. The potential for increased carbon monoxide production needs to be analyzed. We request that this option be re-examined. We will address this issue further in our written comments. Closure Unlike other appliances, the utility of a range/oven depends heavily on the interaction between the user and the appliance. Cooking is much more of an art than a science. Energy use is typically of far less importance than food quality to the consumer. In cooking, the consumer invests time, effort, and a significant amount of dollars to ensure that the fmished food product is acceptable. Changes in appliances designed to boost efficiency do not make sense if the finished product is affected in a way that changes consumer expectations. In most cases, the above-mentioned factors are much more important than the $15.00 the average household spends each year to operate a self-cleaning gas range. Furthermore, as we have seen in recent metered load studies, the amount of energy used in B-6 

### consumption of spark-ignition systems is negligible for gas cooktops. If 

### "glo" type ignition systems are used, the electrical consumption should be considered.
3. Improved Door Seals. Preliminary analysis shows that the magnitude of efficiency achievable by improving door seals for gas ovens is much lower than that assumed by DOE. Under ANSI standards, to prevent excessive surface temperatures, door seals are not allowed to vent. This is not a major heat loss source. We request that this option be reexamined.
4. Forced Convection. Forced convection gas ovens are a very small fraction of the residential market and are extremely expensive when compared to conventional ovens. Past efforts by manufacturers to produce a low-cost gas convection oven were unsuccessful, since the convection process often interferes with the combustion process itself, requiring isolation ofthe combustion process from the oven cavity. This increases costs dramatically. It 

### is unlikely that the energy savings will compensate for the realistic cost increase to manufacture a gas convection oven. In addition, convection oven cooking results in quality and appearance differences when compared to conventional oven cooking. Some ofthese differences may not be acceptable to the consumer. These factors have not been adequately addressed in the DOE analysis.
5. Sealed Burners. Experimental data confirm that sealed burners should not be included as a design option. The data for these burners show little or no efficiency increase. We plan to address this issue further in our written comments.
6. Reduce Excess Air at Burner for Gas Cooktops. Preliminary analysis shows that the magnitude ofefficiency increase achievable with this option is unknown and not measurable at this time. We do not believe that the engineering analysis cited supports the DOE conclusion. Such a burner as described by DOE does not exist on the market and there are no designs that can be evaluated. The potential for increased carbon monoxide production needs to be analyzed. We request that this option be re-examined. We will address this issue further in our written comments. Closure
Unlike other appliances, the utility ofa range/oven depends heavily on the interaction between the user and the appliance. Cooking is much more ofan art 

### than a science. Energy use is typically of far less importance than food quality to the consumer. In cooking, the consumer invests time, effort, and a significant amount ofdollars to ensure that the fmished food product is acceptable. Changes in appliances designed to boost efficiency do not make sense ifthe finished product is affected in a way that changes consumer expectations. In most cases, the above-mentioned factors are much more important than the $15.00 the average household spends each year to operate a self-cleaning gas range. Furthermore, as we have seen in recent metered load studies, the amount ofenergy used in

### B-7

residential ranges has been steadily decreasing due to shifts in lifestyle, changed eating habits, supplementary cooking appliances and convenience food products.

Reproducibility of results, food appearance and quality, ease of use, and cleanability remain the major consumer concerns in range cooking. Utility and performance are much more important for ranges and ovens than for many other appliances. Any modification made to increase efficiency must not negatively impact these features, thereby decreasing the usefulness of the range to the consumer. Many DOE design options have the potential to affect the cooking process and this must therefore be carefully considered.

I have given a brief summary to describe GRI's project on ranges and ovens and to enumerate several important elements of a complete and objective analysis of efficiency levels and the way in which they uniquely impact gas appliances.

In closing, we request that the DOE consider the experimental and analytical results presented in the GRI report3 as we believe that this information is the most thorough and up-to-date currently available.

Thank you for your kind consideration and attention.

(1) Assessment of Technology for Improving the Efficiency of Residential Gas Water Heaters, D. D. Paul et al., GRI Topical Report No. GRI-9110298, December 1991. (2) Technical Input to NAECA Rulemaking for Gas-Fired Ranges, Battelle, GRI Interim Report No. GRI-93/0319, July 1993. (3) Assessment of Technology for Improving the Efficiency of Residential Gas Furnaces and Boilers, F. E. Jakob et a!., GRI Interim Topical Report No. GRI-9410039, January 1994. B-7 

### residential ranges has been steadily decreasing due to shifts in lifestyle, changed eating habits, supplementary cooking appliances and convenience food products. Reproducibility ofresults, food appearance and quality, ease of use, and cleanability remain the major consumer concerns in range cooking. Utility and performance _. are much more important for ranges and ovens than for many other appliances. Any modification made to increase efficiency must not negatively impact these features, thereby decreasing the usefulness ofthe range to the consumer. Many DOE design options have the potential to affect the cooking process and this must therefore be carefully considered.
I have given a brief summary to describe GRI's project on ranges and ovens and to enumerate several important elements ofa complete and objective analysis ofefficiency levels and the way in which they uniquely impact gas appliances.
In closing, we request that the DOE consider the experimental and analytical results presented in the GRI report(3) as we believe that this information is the most thorough and up-to-date currently available.
Thank you for your kind consideration and attention.

(1) Assessment ofTechnologyfor Improving the Efficiency Of Residential Gas Water Heaters, D. D. Paul et al., GRI Topical Report No. GRI-9110298, December 1991. (2) Technical Input to NAECA Rulemakingfor Gas-Fired Ranges, Battelle, GRI Interim Report No. GRI-93/0319, July 1993. (3) Assessment ofTechnologyfor Improving the Efficiency Of Residential Gas Furnaces and Boilers, F. E. Jakob et al., GRI Interim Topical Report No. GRI-94/0039, January 1994.B-8 B-8B-9



### Oral Testimony DOE Public Hearings on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning the Residential Range/Oven Efficiency Standard

"Eight Products Rulemaking" (Docket No. EE-RM-90-201) June 7-8, 1994 Washington D.C.
Speaker Information

Name: D. Karl Landstrom Employer: Battelle Columbus Operations

505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 4320 1-2693 Tel: (614) 424-4803 Fax: (614) 424-3534 Position: Deputy for Administration of the Gas Appliance Technology Center

(GATC) Operations at Battelle. The GATC receives its funding from the Gas Research Institute (Chicago, Illinois). Representing: Technical analyses performed on behalf of the Gas Research Institute

(Rodney C. Rinhoim, GRI Project Monitor) pertinent to DOE's rulemaking concerning ranges/ovens. B-9



### Oral Testimony DOE Public Hearings on the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking Concerning the Residential Range/Oven Efficiency Standard

Speaker 

### Information**~:** 

### Employer:

Position:**Representin~:** 

### "Eight Products Rulemaking" (Docket No. EE-RM-90-20l)
June 7-8, 1994 Washington D.C.

D. Karl Landstrom
Battelle Columbus Operations 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693 Tel: (614) 424-4803 Fax: (614) 424-3534 Deputy for Administration ofthe Gas Appliance Technology Center (GATC) Operations at Battelle. The GATC receives its funding from the Gas Research Institute (Chicago, Illinois).
Technical analyses performed on behalfof the Gas Research Institute (Rodney C. Rinholm, GRI Project Monitor) pertinent to DOE's rulemaking concerning ranges/ovens.B-b 

### Oral Comments I am Karl Landstrom, a projects manager at Battelle's Columbus Operations. I am the manager of a study funded by Gas Research Institute in Chicago to analyze the DOE design options described in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for kitchen ranges and ovens that was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1990 (Vol. 55, No. 189). In addition, the study has been extended to include the new design options that were published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1994 (Vol. 59, No. 43).

I want to thank the Department of Energy for the opportunity today to comment a second time on the DOE Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that covers kitchen ranges and ovens.

The information I will present today is limited to kitchen ranges and ovens and is intended to provide additional data and analysis that we request DOE consider before the publication of the final rule.

The work was carried out by an expert team made up of staff from Battelle Columbus Operations (BCO), American Gas Association Laboratories (A.G.A.L.), and Arthur D. Little Corporation (ADL) under funding of GRI. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG), consisting of manufacturers, trade associations, and gas utility representatives helped to guide the project by assuring realistic costs, approaches and issues were considered.

As I mentioned in my previous testimony, an interim report' was published in July 1993 and reviewed with DOE staff at a meeting in September of 1993. Due to time constraints, DOE was unable to incorporate the results of our study into the NOPR. We plan to submit an additional report covering the new design options as our July 18, 1994, written submission. We respectfully request that both of these reports be considered and analyzed before a final rule is published.

Before I comment on the specific design options, I would like to address several general issues that impact the economic, safety, and utility attributes of the gas range.
Annual Gas Usa2e



### At the core of the economic analysis is the value used for the Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output in the DOE Test Procedure. In the 1970s, this value was established as 947.5 kBtu/yr for gas cooktops and 160.7 kBtu/yr for gas ovens. Recognizing that cooking habits have drastically changed since the time the DOE values were established, DOE averaged four estimates of gas range annual energy use published between 1984 to 1988. Only one of these studies (Southern California Edison-1988) was based upon metered data. All three of the other non-metered conditional demand analysis (CDA) studies were higher than the metered data (actual values, 34.4 therms for the metered data, 44, 42, and 46.7 therms respectively for the CDA studies). DOE obtained an average of 41.8 therms B-lO 

### Oral Comments
I am Karl Landstrom, a projects manager at Battelle's Columbus Operations. I am the manager ofa study funded by Gas Research Institute in Chicago to analyze the DOE design options described in the Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for kitchen ranges and ovens that was published in the 

### Federal Register on September 28, 1990 (Vol. 55, No. 189). In addition, the study has been extended to include the new design options that were published in the 

### Federal Register on March 4, 1994 (Vol. 59, No. 43).
I want to thank the Department ofEnergy for the opportunity today to comment a second time on the DOE Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that covers kitchen ranges and ovens. The information I will present today is limited to kitchen ranges and ovens and is intended to provide additional data and analysis that we request DOE consider before the publication ofthe final rule.
The work was carried out by an expert team made up of staff from Battelle Columbus Operations (BCO), American Gas Association Laboratories (A.G.A.L.), and Arthur D. Little Corporation (ADL) under funding of GR!. A Technical Advisory Group (TAG), consisting of manufacturers, trade associations, and gas utility representatives helped to guide the project by assuring realistic costs, approaches and issues were considered.
As I mentioned in my previous testimony, an interim report(1) was published in July 1993 and reviewed with DOE staffat a meeting in September of 1993. Due to time constraints, DOE was unable to incorporate the results ofour study into the NOPR. We plan to submit an additional report covering the new design options as our July 18, 1994, written submission. We respectfully request that both ofthese reports be considered and analyzed before a final rule is published.
Before I comment on the specific design options, I would like to address several general issues that impact the economic, safety, and utility attributes ofthe gas range. Annual Gas Usage
At the core ofthe economic analysis is the value used for the Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output in the DOE Test Procedure. In the 1970s, this value was established as 947.5 kBtu/yr for gas cooktops and 160.7 kBtu/yr for gas ovens. Recognizing that cooking habits have drastically changed since the time the DOE values were established, DOE averaged four estimates ofgas range annual energy use published between 1984 to 1988. Only one ofthese studies (Southern California Edison-1988) was based upon metered data. All three ofthe other non-metered conditional demand analysis (CDA) studies were higher than the metered data (actual values, 34.4 therms for the metered data, 44, 42, and 46.7 therms respectively for the CDA studies). DOE obtained an average of41.8 therms

### B-li

from this data to determine an "adjusted" cooking energy output value of 732.5 kBtu/yr for gas cooktops and 124.2 kBtu/yr for gas ovens. If only the metered data had been used, the adjusted cooking energy output for cooktops would be 602 kBtu/yr and 102 kBtu/yr for ovens. Southern California Edison Study (1988). The Southern California Edison study was probably the best data available at that time for gas ranges. There is some question that this data excluded all pilot lights as DOE assumed. The assumption was made that, since California banned ranges with pilots in 1978, no ranges with pilots were included in the study. Since gas ranges have about a 19-year life, it is possible that some piloted ranges were included in the study. It is not clear that all ranges with pilots were excluded from the study.

GRI Gas Metered Study. Recent experimental data gathered on gas ranges1 show much lower usage than in the past. This is partially a result of lifestyle changes, more use of microwave ovens, and other new convenience cooking products. For example, in 1984, microwave ovens were at 42 percent market saturation, but by 1988 (the year of the Southern California Edison Study) they had reached 76 percent saturation. Currently, microwave ovens have reached an 85 percent market saturation.2

In our interim report', we submitted data to DOE from an extensive metered study of gas ranges and ovens that was conducted from 1990 to 1992 (see Appendix F of the GRI report). This study determined that Annual Gas Cooking Energy Consumption usage factors have dramatically decreased from the baseline 1984 to 1988 data used in the DOE's NOPR analysis. The current data indicate that the Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output should be further reduced to about 429.5 kBtu/yr for gas cooktops and 91.8 kBtu/yr for gas ovens (see Appendix D of the GRI report).

Also, the number of self-clean cycles for gas ovens assumed by DOE seems unrealistic for current levels of oven use. For gas ovens, if the number of self-clean cycles were reduced in the same ratio as the reduction in annual gas usage, the value would dropfrom 7 to 4. An effort is being made to obtain some actual consumer usage data for selfcleaning and this data is expected to show an average value for about 2 to 3 cleaning cycles per year. We request that the GRI metered study data be considered in the rulemaking process. Design Option First Cost

We are in general agreement with the DOE concerning the life-cycle cost methodology; however, DOE's estimates of first cost for some of the gas design options are low. Specific examples of low first cost estimates will be included in our written comments, and some remarks will be included later when talking about specific design options.

In our interim report' we supplied updated incremental cost information from manufacturers for each of the ANOPR design options. B-ll 

### from this data to determine an "adjusted" cooking energy output value of732.5 

### kBtu/yr for gas cooktops and 124.2 

### kBtu/yr for gas ovens. If

### only the metered data had been used, the adjusted cooking energy output for cooktops would be 602 

### kBtu/yr and 102 

### kBtu/yr for ovens. 

### Southern California Edison Study (1988). The Southern California Edison study was probably the best data available at that time for gas ranges. There is some question that this data excluded all pilot lights as DOE assumed. The assumption was made that, since California banned ranges with pilots in 1978, no ranges with pilots were included in the study. Since gas ranges have about a 19-year life, it is possible that some piloted ranges were included in the study. It is not clear that all ranges with pilots were excluded from the study. 

### GRI Gas Metered Study. Recent experimental data gathered on gas ranges(l) show much lower usage than in the past. This is partially a result oflifestyle changes, more use of microwave ovens, and other new convenience cooking products. For example, in 1984, microwave ovens were at 42 percent market saturation, but by 1988 (the year of the Southern California Edison Study) they had reached 76 percent saturation. Currently, microwave ovens have reached an 85 percent market saturation.(2) 

### In our interim report(l), we submitted data to DOE from an extensive metered study of gas ranges and ovens that was conducted from 1990 to 1992 (see Appendix F ofthe GRI report). This study determined that Annual Gas Cooking Energy Consumption usage factors have dramatically decreased from the baseline 1984 to 1988 data used in the DOE's NOPR analysis. The current data indicate that the Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output should be further reduced·to about 429.5 

### kBtu/yr for gas cooktops and 91.8 

### kBtu/yr for gas ovens (see Appendix D ofthe GRI report). Also, the number of self-clean cycles for gas ovens assumed by DOE seems unrealistic for current levels ofoven use. For gas ovens, ifthe number of self-clean cycles were reduced in the same ratio as the reduction in annual gas usage, the value would drop from 7 to 4. An effort is being made to obtain some actual consumer usage data for selfcleaning and this data is expected to show an average value for about 2 to 3 cleaning cycles per year. We request that the GRI metered study data be considered in the rulemaking process. Design 

### Option First 

### Cost
We are in general agreement with the DOE concerning the life-cycle cost methodology; however, DOE's estimates of first cost for some ofthe gas design options are low. Specific examples oflow first cost estimates will be included in our written comments, and some remarks will be included later when talking about specific design.options.
In our interim report(l) we supplied updated incremental cost information from manufacturers for each ofthe ANOPR design options.

### B-12

Gas Fuel Price Projections

We believe that the life-cycle cost data should be updated by DOE to use current DOE Energy Information Administration estimates of future fuel cost projections rather than the 1991 estimated projections that were used in the NOPR. Further, we can find no justification for the price multiplier of 1.2 for gas and 1.04 for electricity that was used in the NOPR (see Vol. E, Appendix B and Vol. 1, pg. 5-5 of the Technical Support Document, TSD). Almost every home that has a gas range also has a gas furnace or water heater or both. The consumer gets a single bill that does not separate range gas use from the other appliances. For gas ranges, the DOE multiplier amounts to a 20 percent fuel cost penalty over the cost per therm paid for gas. We see no reason to single out ranges as using more expensive fuel. We suggest that these multipliers be eliminated for life-cycle cost calculations. Cooking Ouality

The effect of the DOE design options on cooking quality were not addressed in the NOPR or the TSD. This is probably the area of greatest impact and concern to the consumer. If a design option affects the cooking ability of a range or produces results that are not expected or acceptable to the consumer, it should not be mandated. Many of the DOE design options do have the potential to affect the cooking process or eliminate useful cooking features. The small amounts of energy saved simply do not justify design options that impact on food and cooking quality. Consumers expect that traditional and family recipes be reproducible, have expected quality, be easy to prepare, and do not require mathematical conversions to offset changes in oven performance dictated by design option changes. Ranges have reached a state of maturity that allows quality cooking for a wide variety offoods. Any modification made to increase efficiency must not negatively impact expected cooking performance or features, thereby decreasing the usefulness of the range to the consumer. Many DOE design options have the potential to affect the cooking process or eliminate useful features. These factors must therefore be carefully considered. Other Criteria

Other criteria that were not adequately addressed in the NOPR or TSD are the effects of the design options on consumer safety, cost of compliance, and product utility. New Design Options

Let me now address a few specifics on the five new design options that were published in the NOPR (Figure 1) and determined by DOE to be cost effective for gas ranges. I will briefly describe the areas where new data may be used to more accurately assess the design options. Details will be submitted in the written input on July 18, 1994.

1. Remove Oven Door Window. The GRI analysis based on DOE test procedure measurements of two typical residential gas ranges (standard and self-cleaning B-12 

### Gas 

### Fuel Price Projections
We believe that the life-cycle cost data should be updated by DOE to use current DOE EnergyInformation Administration estimates offuture fuel cost projections rather than the 1991 estimated projections that were used in the NOPR. Further, we can find no justification for the price multiplier of 1.2 for gas and 1.04 for electricity that was used in the NOPR (see Vol. E, Appendix B and Vol. 1, pg. 5-5 ofthe Technical Support Document, TSD). Almost every home that has a gas range also has a gas furnace or water heater or both. The consumer gets a single bill that does not separate range gas use from the other appliances. For gas ranges, the DOE multiplier amounts to a 20 percent fuel cost penalty over the cost per therm paid for gas. We see no reason to single out ranges as using more expensive fuel. We suggest that these multipliers be eliminated for life-cycle cost calculations. 

### Cooking Ouality
The effect ofthe DOE design options on cooking quality were not addressed in the NOPR or the TSD. This is probably the area ofgreatest impact and concern to the consumer. If

### a design option affects the cooking ability ofa range or produces results that are not expected or acceptable to the consumer, it 

### should not be mandated. Many ofthe DOE design options do have the potential to affect the cooking process or eliminate useful cooking features. The small amounts ofenergy saved simply do notjustify design options that impact on food and cooking qUality. Consumers expect that traditional and family recipes be reproducible, have expected quality, be easy to prepare, and do not require mathematical conversions to offset changes in oven performance dictated by design option changes. Ranges have reached a state ofmaturity that allows quality cooking for a wide variety offoods. Any modification made to increase efficiency must not negatively impact expected cooking performance or features, thereby decreasing the usefulness of the range to the consumer. Many DOE design options have the potential to affect the cooking process or eliminate useful features. These factors must therefore be carefully considered.


### Other Criteria
Other criteria that were not adequately addressed in the NOPR or TSD are the effects ofthe design options on consumer safety, cost ofcompliance, and product utility.


### New Design Options
Let me now address a few specifics on the five new design options that were published in the NOPR (Figure 1) and determined by DOE to be cost effective for gas ranges. I 

### will briefly describe the areas where new data may be used to more accurately assess the design options. Details will be submitted in the written input on July 18, 1994.


### 1. Remove Oven Door Window. The 

### GRI analysis based on DOE test procedure measurements oftwo typical residential gas ranges (standard and self-cleaning

### B-13

oven, with and without a windowed door in each case) show less energy savings than that assumed by DOE. Since tests were conducted using only two ranges, these results may not be representative of an industry average.

DOE recognized in their - Technical Support Document that elimi- 5. Reduce Burner Excess Air nating the oven door would require the cook to periodically open the door to Figure 2. Table of new DOE design options view the cooking progress. However, as published in the NOPR and DOE estimated energy savings assuming determined by DOE to be cost no oven door openings, claiming the effective energy losses per opening were very small. GRI tests show energy losses per door opening are significant. Table 1 gives a comparison of the DOE calculations of the energy saved by eliminating the window with the GRI test results.

Energy Saved (Btu/yr)

Type of Range DOE TSD* GRI Tests**

(no door (4 door openings/cycle) openings/cycle)

______________ 

### Btu/yr Btu/yr Gas, Non 80,700 38,600 Self-Cleaning

_________________ 

### Gas, Self _________________



### 67,000 -9,200

Cleaning

________________ ________________ *TJses DOE Adjusted annual gas usage **Tjses GRI annual gas usage 

### Table 1. Energy Saved by Eliminating Oven Window
The ORTECH3 study used in the TSD to obtain the efficiency increase for removing the door window states, "it is highly questionable, however, whether elimination of the oven window would be acceptable in the marketplace or would even result in any real energy savings. . ." We agree with this conclusion. 

### 1. Remove Oven Door Window 2. Electric Ignition 3. Improved Door Seals 4. Forced Convection

For perspective, Graph 1 shows the energy cost savings for gas ovens without windows as a function of the number of door openings. Eliminating a window from a non oven, with and without a windowed door in each case) show less energy savings than that assumed by DOE. Since tests were conducted using only two ranges, these results may not be representative of an industry average. DOE recognized in their Technical Support Document that eliminating the oven door would require the cook to periodically open the door to view the cooking progress. However, DOE estimated energy savings assuming no oven door openings, claiming the energy losses per opening were very B-13

1. Remove Oven Door Window 2. Electric Ignition 

### 3. Improved Door Seals 4. Forced Convection 5. Reduce Burner Excess Air 

### Figure 2. Table of new DOE design options as published in the NOPR and detennined by DOE to be cost effective
small. GR! tests show energy losses per door opening are significant. Table 1 gives a comparison ofthe DOE calculations ofthe energy saved by eliminating the window with the GR! test results.

.

Energy Saved (Btu/yr) Type of

Range DOE TSD* GRI Tests** (no door (4 door openings/cycle) openings/cycle) Btu/yr Btu/yr Gas, Non 80,700 38,600 Self-Cleaning Gas, Self 67,000 -9,200 Cleaning *Uses DOE Adjusted annual gas usage **Uses GRI annual gas usage 

### Table 1. 

### Energy Saved by Eliminating Oven Window

The ORTECH(3) study used in-the TSD to obtain the efficiency increase for removing the door window states, "it is highly questionable, however, whether elimination of the oven window would be acceptable in the marketplace or would even result in any real energy savings

..." We agree with this conclusion.
For perspective, Graph 1 shows the energy cost savings for gas ovens without windows as a function ofthe number ofdoor openings. Eliminating a window from a non

### B-14

self-cleaning oven saves about 23 cents per year with four door openings per cycle, but this is totally insignificant when the decreased utility of the oven is considered. As shown, with a self-cleaning oven, there is an actual energy loss amounting to about 5 cents per year by eliminating the oven window.

The oven window is a feature appreciated by most consumers. The window allows inspection of the cooking process without door openings that may cause failure of delicate food items such as souffles, variability in timing, or unacceptable results for some foods. Of equal, or perhaps greater importance, are the safety issues. Each additional door opening while the oven is in use provides an increased probability for contact with hot surfaces or steam. This is of special concern for children or physically limited individuals.



### 0.50
0.40 0.30 .5 0.20
0.10 D) 

### .E 0.00 

# j

-0.30
-0.40 -0.50 012345678910 

## No. of Oven Door Openings per Test Graph 1. Energy Cost Savings for Gas Ovens Without Windows
2. Electric Ignition. For this design option, DOE treated cooktops and ovens as separate appliances, even though over 90 percent of the market is for the combined appliance or range. In determining life-cycle costs for this option, DOE applied maintenance costs only to the cooktop. This is incorrect, as the oven will also require maintenance of an lID device and the chance of failure over the 19-year range life is expected to be similar for both the cooktop and the oven electric ignition devices. B-14 

### self-cleaning oven saves about 23 cents per year with four door openings per cycle, but this is totally insignificant when the decreased utility ofthe oven is considered. As shown, with a self-cleaning oven, there is an actual energy loss amounting to 

### about 5 cents per year by eliminating the oven window.
The oven window is a feature appreciated by most consumers. The window allows inspection ofthe cooking process without door openings that may cause failure of delicate food items such as souffles, variability in timing, or unacceptable results for some foods. Ofequal, or perhaps greater importance, are the safety issues. Each additional door opening while the oven is in use provides an increased probability for contact with hot surfaces or steam. This is ofspecial concern for children or physically limited individuals.



### 'i:' 

# = 

# i
as 

# -- '0 

## :E- 

# " OJ 

### c 

# 1 fI) 

### t; 

## o 

## o >a 

### 0.50

..........

# ......,..-""I""'"'"--r-...,........,r--....,...-or--

......- ......--. 0.40 Energy Cost Savings for Gas Ovens WithoutWindows 

### 0.30 Non-Self-Cleaning Oven 

### 0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20

## ~ -0.30 

### c 

## w -0.40 Self-Cleaning Oven 

### -0.50

......----.......---................-.-"--------

...... 

# o 1 

### 2 

### 3 4 

### 5 

### 6 7 8 9 10 

### No. ofOven DoorOpenings perTest Graph 1. Energy Cost Savings for Gas Ovens Without Windows

2. 

### Electric lenition. For this design option, DOE treated cooktops and ovens as separate appliances, even though over 90 percent ofthe market is for the combined appliance or range. In determining life-cycle costs for this option, DOE applied maintenance costs only to the cooktop. This is incorrect, as the oven will also require maintenance ofan lID device and the chance offailure over the 19-year range life is expected to be similar for both the cooktop and the oven electric ignition devices.

### B-15

•The installation of an electric outlet behind the range will probably be required to operate the electric ignition devices for a majority of cases where a piloted range will be replaced with an electric ignition range or even for new installations. DOE did not factor this cost into the analysis. Currently, about 24 percent of the gas ranges produced in the United States are piloted. Preliminary analysis indicates that when maintenance, outlet modification costs, and realistic annual gas usage are considered, this design option is not economically justified for either the cooktop or the oven. We will be providing additional information in the written submission.

3. Improved Door Seals. Consultations with manufacturers indicate that oven door seals have been greatly improved since the 1977 reference cited by DOE3 For improved door seals, the 7 percent efficiency improvement is not applicable for gas ovens, based on a thorough review of DOE's cited documentation. To quote, "This improvement applies primarily to standard electric ovens with little impact on gas-fired standard ovens or self-cleaning ovens. . . For gas ovens, the amount of air coming in through the door seals issmall compared to the combustion products flowing through the oven. Therefore, improvement of door seals has a negligible effect on gas oven efficiency, "(3) and improved door seals for gas standard ovens are "infeasible" and "not applicable" for gas self-clean ovens.4 Therefore, this option is not technically or economically justified.

4. Forced Convection. Forced convection gas ovens are a very small fraction of the residential market (currently only available on commercial-look ranges). The cost of producing a gas convection oven is considerably more than its electric counterpart since forced convection interferes with the combustion process, requiring partial isolation of the combustion chamber from the oven cavity. DOE cost estimates are low for gas convection and we are currently gathering realistic cost estimates for this design option and will submit them with the written comments.

Forced convection ovens have unique cooking characteristics that are not acceptable for all foods. To require all standard ovens to use forced convection would produce unacceptable results for some traditional foods and the consumer should be able to choose to use it only when needed. There is also great uncertainty as to the amount of energy potentially saved by this option. There is great variability in energy savings and food quality(') depending on the particular food being cooked. Some foods cooked with convection ovens can actually use more energy than in a standard oven.6

Our preliminary analysis shows that this option will not be economically justified if realistic first costs and energy savings are used. We will be providing additional information in the written submission.

5. Reduce Burner Excess Air. The magnitude of efficiency increase achievable with this option cannot be determined from the TSD or the cited DOE documentation.7 The burner, as described by DOE, does not exist on the market. The DOE engineering analysis7 gives an efficiency increase of 3 percentage points above the baseline based on an unknown B-15 

### The installation ofan electric outlet behind the range will probably be required to operate the electric ignition devices for a majority ofcases where a piloted range will be replaced with an electric ignition range or even for new installations. DOE did not factor this cost into the analysis. Currently, about 24 percent ofthe gas ranges produced in the United States are piloted. Preliminary analysis indicates that when maintenance, outlet modification costs, and realistic annual gas usage are considered, this design option is not economicallyjustified for either the cooktop or the oven. We will be providing additional information in the written submission. 

### 3. Improved Door Seals. Consultations with manufacturers indicate that oven door seals have been greatly improved since the 1977 

### reference cited by DOE(3) For improved door seals, the 7 

### percent efficiency improvement is not applicable for gas ovens, based on a thorough review ofDOE's cited documentation. To quote, "This improvement applies primarily to standard electric ovens with little impact on gas-fired standard ovens or self-cleaning ovens
... For gas ovens, the amount ofair coming in through the door seals is small compared to the combustion products flowing through the oven. Therefore, improvement ofdoor seals has a negligible effect on gas oven efficiency,,,(3) and improved door seals for gas standard ovens are "infeasible" and "not applicable" for gas self-clean ovens.(4) 

### Therefore, this option is not technically or economicallyjustified.
4. Forced Convection. Forced convection gas ovens are a very small fraction ofthe residential market (currently only available on commercial-look ranges). The cost of producing a gas convection oven is considerably more than its electric counterpart since forced convection interferes with the combustion process, requiring partial isolation ofthe combustion chamber from the oven cavity. DOE cost estimates are low for gas convection and we are currently gathering realistic cost estimates for this design option and will submit them with the written comments. Forced convection ovens have unique cooking characteristics that are not acceptable for all foods. To require all standard ovens to use forced convection would produce unacceptable results for some traditional foods and the consumer should be able to choose to use it only when needed. There is also great uncertainty as to the amount of energy**~tentially** 

### saved by this option. There is great variability in energy savings and food quality{ ) depending on the particular food being cooked. Some foods cooked with convection ovens can actually use more energy than in a standard oven.(6) 

### Our preliminary analysis shows that this option will not be economicallyjustified if

### realistic first costs and energy savings are used. We will be providing additional information in the written submission.
5. Reduce BurnerExcess Air. The magnitude ofefficiency increase achievable with this option cannot be determined from the TSD or the cited DOE documentation.(7) The burner, as described by DOE, does not exist on the market. The DOE engineering analysis(7) gives an efficiency increase of 3 percentage points above the baseline based on an unknown

### B-16

redesign and shrouding that is also unspecified based upon the references that were given in the TSD. If DOE has any additional information available for this design option, we request that it be made available for analysis.

The potential for increased carbon monoxide production exists for burners with -reduced excess air, which needs to be considered in conjunction with any increased efficiency. This design option cannot be properly evaluated without additional design and performance information. Other DOE Design Options

The other DOE proposed design options were discussed in my previous oral testimony (April 5-7, 1994) and are analyzed in detail in the GRI report1 that has been submitted to DOE. We will expand this document in the written submission of July 18, 1994, to cover the new DOE design options. To summarize, there were no other DOE design options that were life-cycle cost justified. Closure It is important to realize that a range/oven represents an appliance that has considerable consumer interaction and expectations. The prime function of a range is to cook food in an acceptable manner with consistent results. Energy use is typically of far less importance than food quality to the consumer. Changes in ranges designed to boost efficiency often change the way the food is cooked and do not make sense if the finished product is affected in a way that changes consumer expectations and requirements. In most cases, the above-mentioned factors are much more important than the $15.00 the average household spends each year to operate a self-cleaning gas range. Furthermore, as we have seen in recent metered load studies, the amount of energy used in residential ranges has been steadily decreasing due to shifts in lifestyle, changed eating habits, microwave oven saturation, supplementary cooking appliances and convenience food products.

Reproducibility of results, food appearance and quality, ease of use, and cleanability remain the major consumer concerns in range cooking. The ruin of one meal because the cook could not observe the cooking process, or having to modify traditional or ethnic recipes to fit new oven characteristics that do not produce the expected results has greater cost implications than any projected potential energy savings. Any modification made to increase efficiency must not negatively impact expected cooking performance or features, thereby decreasing the usefulness of the range to the consumer. Many DOE design options have the potential to affect the cooking process or eliminate useful features. These factors must therefore be carefully considered.

I have given a brief summary that describes GRE's project on ranges and ovens and that enumerates several important elements of a complete and objective analysis of efficiency levels and the way in which they uniquely impact gas appliances. B-16 redesign and shrouding that is also unspecified based upon the references that were given in the TSD. IfDOE has any additional information available for this design option, we request that it be made available for analysis.
The potential for increased carbon monoxide production exists for burners with reduced excess air, which needs to be considered in conjunction with any increased efficiency. This design option cannot be properly evaluated without additional design and performance information. 

### Other DOE Desi::n Options
The other DOE proposed design options were discussed in my previous oral testimony (April 5-7, 1994) and are analyzed in detail in the GRI report(l) that has been submitted to DOE. We will expand this document in the written submission ofJuly 18, 1994, to cover the new DOE design options. To summarize, there were no other DOE design options that were life-cycle costjustified. 

### Closure
It is important to realize that a range/oven represents an appliance that has considerable consumer interaction and expectations. The prime function ofa range is to cook food in an acceptable manner with consistent results. Energy use is typically of far less importance than food quality to the consumer. Changes in ranges designed to boost efficiency often change the way the food is cooked and do not make sense ifthe finished product is affected in a way that changes consumer expectations and requirements. In most cases, the above-mentioned factors are much more important than the $15.00 the average household spends each year to operate a self-cleaning gas range. Furthermore, as we have seen in recent metered load studies, the amount ofenergy used in residential ranges has been steadily decreasing due to shifts in lifestyle, changed eating habits, microwave oven saturation, supplementary cooking appliances and convenience food products. Reproducibility ofresults, food appearance and quality, ease of use, and cleanability remain the major consumer concerns in range cooking. The ruin ofone meal because the cook could not observe the cooking process, or having to modify traditional or ethnic recipes to fit new oven characteristics that do not produce the expected results has greater cost implications than any projected potential energy savings. Any modification made to increase efficiency must not negatively impact expected cooking performance or features, thereby decreasing the usefulness ofthe range to the consumer. Many DOE design options have the potential to affect the cooking process or eliminate useful features. These factors must therefore be carefully considered.
I have given a brief summary that describes GRI's project on ranges and ovens and that enumerates several important elements of a complete and objective analysis of efficiency levels and the way in which they uniquely impact gas appliances.B-17 In closing, we request that the DOE consider the experimental and analytical results presented in the GRI report'' the oral testimony, and the written report to be submitted as we believe that this information is the most thorough and up to date currently available. Thank you for your kind consideration and attention.
References 1. Battelle, et aL, Technical Input to NAECA Rulemaking for Gas-Fired Ranges, GRI Interim Report, GPJ-9310319, July 1993. 2. Appliance Magazine, Annual Survey 1983-1993. 3. ORTECH International. 1989. Energy-Efficient Electrical Product Knowledge Base, Prepared by ORTECH International, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, for the Canadian Electrical Association, C.E.A., No. 821 U 678, October 1989. Citing SAl, 1977, Energy Efficiency Program for Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Science Applications, Inc., La Jolla CA. Report No. HCP/M60727-01, Prepared for DOE under contract CR-04-60727-00. Page 6-23. 4. ORTECH International. 1989. Op. cit. SAl report, Executive Summary, pg. 11, Table D.
5. Lovingood, R. P., DeMerchant, E. A., and Hines, L. J., "Oven Performance in Convection vs. Radiant Mode," Proceedings of the 45th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference, May 9-11, 1994, Madison WI. 6. Heist, J., & Cresser, M. L., "Sensory quality and energy use for baking of molasses cookies prepared with bleached & unbleached flour and baked in infrared, forced air convection, and conventional deck ovens," Journal of Food Science, Vol. 55, No. 4, 1990, Pg. 1095-1100. 7. U.S. DOE. 1980. Engineering Analysis. Washington, D.C., DOE/CS-0166, June 1980. B-17 In closing, we request that the DOE consider the experimental and analytical results presented in the GRI report(}), the oral testimony, and the written report to be submitted as we believe that this information is the most thorough and up to date currently available.
Thank you for your kind consideration and attention.


### References
1. Battelle, et al., Technical Input to NAECA Rulemakingfor Gas-FiredRanges, GRI Interim Report, GRI-93/0319, July 1993. 2. Appliance Magazine, Annual Survey 1983-1993.
3. ORTECH International. 1989. Energy-Efficient Electrical Product Knowledge Base, Prepared by ORTECH International, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, for the Canadian Electrical Association, C.E.A., No. 821 U 678, October 1989. Citing SAl, 1977, Energy Efficiency Program/or Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Science Applications, Inc., La Jolla CA. Report No. HCP/M60727-01, Prepared for DOE under contract CR-04-60727-OO. Page 6-23.
4. ORTECH International. 1989. Op. cit. SAl report, Executive Summary, pg. 11, Table D.
5. Lovingood, R. P., DeMerchant, E. A., and Hines, L. J., "Oven Performance in Convection vs. Radiant Mode," Proceedings ofthe 45th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference, May 9-11, 1994, Madison WI.
6. Heist, J., & Cresser, M. L., "Sensory quality and energy use for baking ofmolasses cookies prepared with bleached & unbleached flour and baked in infrared, forced air convection, and conventional deck ovens," Journal 

### 0/Food Science, Vol. 55, No.4, 1990, Pg. 1095-1100.
7. U.S. DOE. 1980. Engineering Analysis. Washington, D.C., DOE/CS-OI66, June 1980.

- 

### ,B-18 B-18

- \

### Appendix C Supporting Material Exhibit 1. Frigidaire Letter Exhibit 2. Testimony of Lyn Cook Exhibit 3. Testimony of Russell Zipkin

and Bill Hughes Exhibit 4. Sears Ad Exhibit 5. ADL Report Appendix C Supporting Material Exhibit 1. 

### Frigidaire Letter Exhibit 2. Testimony ofLyn Cook Exhibit 3. Testimony ofRussell Zipkin and Bill Hughes Exhibit 4. Sears Ad

.Exhibit 5. ADL Report

## c-i

APPENDIX C. SUPPORTING MATERIAL
Exhibit 1. Frigidaire letter 

# FRIG!1R

TOt W. Miller

Z, W&.ksr/A. E..tzer )ay 3,. 1994 

## uJ& I'tfma.tia or CE

- - C-l



### APPENDIX C. SUPPORTING MATERIAL
Exhibit 1. Frigidaire letter



## w. Hiller 

## z. W&l.ker/A. 

### Uizer Hay 3, 1994 Intn:au:t.i.aa**£o~** t)QE

'1'be 

### toJ..J.gw;j"Dg**~oru.ti.OA** ill per yoar request frc:a**~** 

### c:azmsc:t.:i.o1:t. bllul til Opcla'Ce KeetiDCj•

....... 1:'**G~** 

## :u.. J)oazt .,.,..... _**Coakiav~** 1f.b.ila 

### oar li'tUat.ura azu:l that 

### at CJ1U" 

### cc.petital:1r' (aetachmeat**l~** Jt:I.tctaeDA;d) sUlJq1UIt that· 1M 

### .haa1d. not -0V1ID

# .a people v.Ul ccmt.iDlIO to do it. Saei.D1J ill de't1ni:tal.y 

### baU.aricIJ :Ul 

## t.au. caa.. 

## w. dOll #'to .aut to 1

.. ". 

### oar coaki

### ng aUarta to ehilDCll ¥bather 

### it 1& 'tha 

## u-. va 

### a:e speDd. to baka QZ" the 

### lIOIUIf WIlt PU1; iDto 

### pw:clzaaiD9 • 

### ::oa.t..
'bon; S;RPk 

### 'tiM ('RAb II 

### biscuit,« 

### c;gplcw1" 

### at leaR 2 

### or 3 1:.iJIiuaI fill toUCN8& 1. wbIq f.u-at az:'QIIIl 1a nO'bId 3. 

### c**.~z';"pm** ead. 

### ot au.qg_t:8d 

### caak time 3.**a~** &dditi.crD&l oaalc tiJIa 

### it D•• dlld buad on second 

### lock Steps 1 uc! Z 

### lllight be switched 

### Vl.th 

### no neeci 

### for sup 3. 

### Mdt-**S:og~** 

### Time {'USb A'S'.'t Qia.. sal.rele,. 

### SOMd 1 at lAiIwuIt 

### lor" ti..- 48 foUowal 1" 

### 'II'.b.cm fi:Bt a.rt1IM iJI DG'tecl 2. at. 'IiDllll1Dl ea.d of**.~tac:L** cook 

### time

.. 3.**~** 

### add1t;ozaA1 cook t1mIa 

### U ..sed. huad 

### all sacoDd look 4.**~** adclit.ioDa1 cook**~:lma** if aeeclecl**~_** OD 1:h1:cl leak 

### ApiJa"**.~** 

### 1 ud 2 

### llipt be tnri;tc:becl• .At 

### laut amp 

### 3 

### will ba _adad 

### beaaua**o~** 'tbt8 

### loDq1l%' cook ti1Ie 

### .a that tha 

# ctcma-.. eaa ba tIIUIa:eG.C-2 C-2

### C-3

COMMENTS BY:

LYN COOK P.H.Ec. Consulting Home Economist

TO:

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

REGARD]NG:

PROPOSED APPLIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RANGES

JUNE 7, 1994

C-3



### COlv.iMENTS BY:



### L

YN COOK P.H.Ec. ConsultingHome Economist

TO:

THEUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFENERGY

REGARDING:

PROPOSED APPLIANCEENERGYEffiCIENCYSTANDARDS FOR RANGES

JUNE 7,1994

### C-4

WHO AM I 

### Lyn Cook, a Consulting Professional Home Economist, with 24 years of diversified experience in consumers affairs, appliance testing and food service management. I am also a homemaker who enjoys cooking and baking for my family and friends. I am testifying on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

WHAT AN I TALKING ABOUT
The proposed Department of Energy appliance energy efficiency standards for ranges. My comments apply to both electric and gas ranges. The data referred to focuses primarily on electric ranges.

WHY AM I TESTIFYING 

### The proposed standards are stringent and impractical. They could have a major and significant impact on the consumer with regards to reduced consumer utility, diminished cooking performance, change of cooking habits, and increased retail cost. My concerns are with the recommended design options and I will proceed to discuss why. C-4 WHO AM I
Lyn 

### Cook, a Consulting Professional Home Economist, with 24 

### years of diversified experience in consumers affairs, appliance testing and food service management. I am also a homemaker who enjoys cooking and baking for my 

### family and friends. I am testifying on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT


### The proposed Department of Energy appliance energy efficiency standards for ranges. My 

### comments apply to both electric and gas ranges. The data referred to focuses primarily on electric ranges.

WHY AM I TESTIFYING


### The proposed standards are stringent and impractical. They could have a major and significant impact on the consumer with regards to reduced consumer utility, diminished cooking performance, change of cooking habits, and increased retail cost. My 

### concerns are with the recommended design options and I will proceed to discuss why.C-5

NO OVEN DOOR WI2OW

"It is highly questionable, however, whether elimination of the window would be acceptable in the marketplace. . ..' states the Ortech report from the Canadian Electrical Association - Independent Lab (1989). To my ]cnwledge, more than half of all ranges produced today have a window on the oven door. It is a popular consumer driven feature. To view the cooking process, to be able to feel confident about and to determine if the food is cooking properly and to their satisfaction are important considerations for the consumer. The most effective way to do this is through the oven door window. It is interesting to note that this point is specifically referred to in the publication Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings, published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.


### If the oven window is eliminated, opening the oven door and peeking into the oven will cause heat loss, longer cooking times and unsatisfactory baking and cooking results. My observations from cooking tests, where the oven door is opened repeatedly, show that foods situated at the front of the over do not brown as well or cook evenly as those located in the center or back of the oven. Some testing has been done and the results show that cooking performance is not acceptable. Rearrangement of the food in the oven may be necessary in order to cook or bake it properly and evenly. My past experience tells me that many foods, in particular, popular baked foods such as cookies and muffins would be adversely affected. C-5 NO OVEN DOOR WINDOW



### nIt is highly questionable, however, whether elimination of the window would be acceptable in the marketplace

....n states the Ortech report fram the Canadian Electrical Association

- Independent Lab**(~989).** 

### To my 

### knowledge, more than half of all ranges produced today have a window on the oven door. It is a popular consumer driven feature. To view the cooking process, to be able to feel confident about and to determine if the food is cooking properly and to their satisfaction are important considerations for the consumer. The most effective way to do this is through the oven door window. It is interesting to note that this point is specifically referred to in the publication Consumer Guide to Hame Energy Savings, published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
If the oven window is eliminated, opening the oven door and peeking into the oven will cause heat loss, longer cooking times and unsatisfactory baking and cooking results. My 

### observations from cooking tests, where the oven door is opened repeatedly, show that foods situated at the front of the ovea do not brown as well or cook evenly as those located in the center or back of the oven. Some testing has been done and the results show that cooking performance is not acceptable. Rearrangement of the food in the oven may be necessary in order to cook or bake it properly and evenly. My 

### past experience tells me that many foods, in particular, popular baked foods such as cookies and muffins would be adversely affected.

### C-6

USE OF REFLECTIVE SRPACES



### I am concerned with the GR.I report that reflective oven surfaces are likely to cause an uneven distribution of heat resulting in hot spots in the oven. Due to the possibility of unpredictable cooking results, the consumer would have to constantly monitor the cooking performance of the oven.
I concur with the TSD statement, and I quote, "The reflective materials degrade after the first baking function and continue to degrade through the life of the product. This is especially true of self-cleaning ovens as the self-cleaning process damages the reflective walls and negates any possible energy savings." It can be expected that the resulting discoloration would draw negative consumer reaction. DOE, TSD and .AIThN numbers indicate that approximately 55 to 58% of all ovens have the self-clean feature. If implemented, this design option would have limited appeal to the consumer.
I am also concerned, as is the DOE when they stated in the NPR for cooktops, and I quote, "... . the Department is concerned about the longevity of the design option, reflective surfaces, required to meet this standard." I feel this concern for longevity is also warranted for oven cavities. C-6 USE 01' REPLEC'l':IVE Stm.PACES



### I am concerned with the GRI report**t~t** 

### reflective oven surfaces are likely to cause an uneven distribution of heat resulting in hot spots in the oven. Due to the possibility of unpredictable cooking results, the consumer would have to constantly monitor the cooking performance of the oven.
I concur with the TSD statement, and I quote, "The reflective materials degrade after the first baking function and continue to degrade through the life of the product. This is especially true of self-cleaning ovens as the self-cleaning process damages the reflective walls and negates any possible energy savings." It can be expected that the resulting- discoloration would draw negative consumer reaction. DOE, TSD and AHAM numbers indicate that approximately 55 to 

## sst of all ovens have the self-clean feature. If implemented, this design option would have limited appeal to the consumer.
I am also concerned, as is the DOE when they staced in the NPR for cooktops, and I quote,"

....the Department is concerned about the longevity of the design option, reflective surfaces, required to meet this standard." I feel this concern for longevity is also warranted for oven cavities.

- \

### C-7

IMPROVED DOOR SEALS / REDUCED VT RATE



### I address these two design options together because each is dependant on the other for good cooking performance.
A complete door seal is not practical on an oven because the introduction of some air into the oven cavity is necessary for proper cooking performance.
The primary functions of the vent tube are to exhaust the products of combustion and the moisture produced by foods during the cooking process.
If the vent size is restricted, moisture and heat can collect below the vent area and cause a concentration of heat with the possibility of overcooking foods situated in that area of the oven. For example, a tray of cookies would be baked to varying degrees, some may be overdone, some may be only partially cooked.
In current oven, a proper balance of these two design options has been established, for a variety of foods with different moisture contents, so that acceptable cooking performance is achieved. Any design changes to either the vent tube or the door seal would have to be subjected to cooking performance tests to determine whether acceptable results are still being achieved. C-7 IMPR.OVED POOR. SEALS / "REDUCED VENT RATE



### I address these two design options together because each is dependant on the other for good cooking performance.

A complete door seal is not practical on an oven because the introduction of some air into the oven cavity is necessary for proper cooking performance.
The primary functions of the vent tube are to exhaust the products of combustion and the moisture produced by foods during the cooking process.
If the vent size is restricted, moisture and heat can collect below the vent area and cause a concentration of heat with the possibility of overcooking foods situated in that area of the oven. For example, a tray of cookies would be baked to varying degrees, some may be overdone, some may be only partially cooked

. 

# . In current oven, a proper balance of these two design options has been established, for a variety of foods with different moisture contents, so that acceptable cooking p$rfor.mance is achieved. Any design changes to either the vent tube or the door seal would have to be subjected to cooking perfor.mance tests to determine whether acceptable results are still being achieved.

### C-8

REDUCED THERMAL MASS



### It has been indicated in the Ortech report that one way of reducing thermal mass is by going to a 30'c smaller oven cavity. According tO the publication Consumer Reports, consumers prefer a larger oven cavity. When I have talked to consumers at Home shows and in Dealers' showrooms, a large oven cavity is desirable, whether they are shopping for a new or replacement oven. If the oven cavity size is reduced, this would have to be considered to be a significant loss of use for the consumer. For instance, even if a household is considered small, with one or two people, the perception by most consumers is that a large oven is needed for the few times a year they prepare special meals, such as family birthday parties or a turkey dinner with all the trixrnings at Thanksgiving and Christmas. C-8



### It has been indicated in the Ortech report that one way of reducing ther.ma1 mass is by 

### going to a 30t smaller oven cavity. According to the publication Consumer Reports, consumers prefer a larger oven cavity. When I have talked to consumers at Home shows and in Dealers' showrooms, a large oven cavity is desirable, whether they are shopping for a new or replacement oven.
If the oven cavity size is reduced, this would have to be considered to be a significant loss of use for the consumer. For instance, even if a household is considered small, with one or two people, the perception by most consumers is that a large oven is needed for the few times a year they prepare special meals, such as family birthday parties or a turkey dinner with a11 the trimmings at Thanksgiving and Christmas.

### C-9

FORCED CONVECTION



### Consumer resistance is-- expected because a lifetime of cooking habits which are often passed down from generation to generation must be changed. The majority of today's consumers are not willing to spend the time to learn how to convert recipes to convection temperatures and times.
Favorite family recipes will be affected by time/temperature changes required for convection cooking. For example, in baked goods, the temperature adjustment is critical to the texture. If the outside crust solidifies before the interior has a chance to rise, a heavy and dense product will result and Grandma's Old Fashioned Sponge Cake may never be the same again.
In addition, it may be necessary for the consumer to purchase special pans and racks to achieve maximum browning and even cooking, adding an additional expense to the purchase of the oven. Cookbooks, magazines and newspapers contain recipes which are written and presented using conventional oven temperatures, times and instructions. All media communications and presentations would have to list both conventional and convection instructions. Preparation and cooking instructions on packaged goods would require changes. Forced convection cooking would make a significant impact in all of these areas and may cause the same type of confusion that occurs when both Metric and Imperial measurements are listed for a recipe.
If the consumer is not satisfied with the convection cooking results, the time to cook and the temperature used must be manipulated in order to obtain the desired cooked product. This takes time and money for food and can be a frustrating experience for people who enjoy cooking and take pride in their results. Give the consumer the option to cook conventionally or by convection. Otherwise, I feel a major educational program for all consumers would be a definite necessity. C-9

PORCED CONVECTION



### Consumer resistance is,· expected because a lifetime of cooking habits which are often passed down fram generation to generation must be changed. The ,majority of today's consumers are not willing to spend the time to learn how to convert recipes to convection temperatures and times.
Favorite family recipes will be affected by time/temperature changes required for convection cooking. For example, in baked goods, the temperature adjustment is critical to the texture. If the outside crust solidifies before the interior has a chance to rise, a heavy and dense product will result and Grandma's Old Fashioned Sponge Cake may never be the same again.

In addition, it may be necessary for the consumer to purchase special pans and racks to achieve maximum 

### browning and even cooking, adding an additional expense to the purchase of the oven.
. Cookbooks, magazines and newspapers contain recipes which are written and presented using conventional oven temperatures, times and instructions. All media communications and presentations would have to list 'both conventional and convection instructions. Preparation and cooking instructions on packaged goods would require changes. Forced convection cooking would make a significant impact in all of these areas and may cause the same type of confusion that occurs when both Metric and Imperial measurements are listed for a recipe.

If the consumer is not satisfied with the convection cooking results, the time to cook and the temperature used must be manipulated in order to obtain the desired cooked product. This takes time and money for food and can be a frustrating experience for people who enjoy cooking and take pride in their results. Give the consumer the option to cook conventionally or by convection. Otherwise, I feel a major educational program for all consumers would be a definite necessity.

## c-b

In conclusion, I question if these changes were proposed by anyone who cooks. I suggest you ask the person who does the cooking in your home how they feel about these changes and how they will affect the foods you enjoy eating.
On behalf of AHAM and the consumer, thank you for the opportunity to put forth our concerns about the proposed DOE recommended design options. C-IO


### In conclusion, I question if these changes were proposed by anyone who cooks. I suggest you ask the person who does the cooking in your home how they feel abqut these changes and how they will affect the foods you enjoy eating.



## on behalf of AHAM and the consumer, thank you for the opportun;ty to put forth our concerns about the proposed DOE recommended design options.

### c-il

I am Russell. Zipkin, co-founder ofthe Russell Range Co., based near San Francisco. It is an honor to be hear today. As an American and a consumer of energy myself, I would like to say that I respect highly, the principaLs behind your attempt to reduce energy waste. Russell Range is part of a new segment of the appliance industry. We manufacture high capacity cooking products which offer the utility of restaurant equipment to the home chef. Russell Range is a pure example of small American Entrepreneurial Companies which manufacture products created purely out of consumer demand. The small group of manufacturers in this niche market, not to mention the other support companies such as shippers, distributors, dealerships and advertising coinparues will all suffer greatly when we and our products disappear. Which will happen because of this particular rulemaking. Our niche was created when consumers began purchasing the same tools and equipment that professional chefs in restaurants have been using for many years. Large and small companies all over the world such as, Cuisinart, Krups, General Housewares, Viking Range and others began supplying products such as food processors, large heavy duty aluminum cookware, fine cutlery, hand held blenders and high powered multi featured cooktops, ovens and ranges. The simple fact is, that our small niche market was created because our consumers, desire products that deliver as much energy as possible. This growing "Gourmet Industry" is coupled with tremendous sales in associated industries such as fine wines, cookbooks, sauces, gadgets, dinnerware and much more. At the forefront of this culinary renaissance, are companies such as VIKING RANGE, WOLF RANGE, GARLAND RANGE, FIVE STAR, SUB-ZERO, NORTHLAND and RUSSELL RANGE. All of these companies can trace their origins to the restaurant equipment industry where professional chefs are free to create food works of art because of the tools available to them and the full range of power they deliver. What we and the other companies created, are products that offer similar utility, but pass much stricter safety and efficiency standards for home installation, than do regular restaurant ranges. No continuous burning pilot lights, slightly lower BTIJ burners, zero clearance cabinets, push to turn knobs and more, are all examples of the efforts we put into improving the basic concept for the home owner. Now, consumers whom choose to have the cooking power and benefits of a professional range in their home kitchen, can. This is a critical point We are talking about the freedom to choose a high energy delivering product, because it suits their lifestyle. The fastest growing and most successful segment of the home building industry, in the past few years, is remodeling. Architects, designers and custom builders alike have recognized the flexibility, importance and demand for our high powered, high capacity products. Statistically, the most commonly remodeled room in the home is the kitchen. That has been true for some time, however, now they are larger, on average, then ever before, often including work islands, pot racks, double ovens, big C-ll


### I am RussellZipkin, co-founder of the Russell Range Co., based near San 

### Francisco. It is an honor to be 

### hear today. As 

### an American and a consumer of energymyself, I would like to say thatI respecthighly, the principals behind your attempt to 

### reduce energy waste. Russell Range is part of a new segment of the appliance industry. We manufacture high capacity cookingproducts which offer the utility ofrestaurant equipment to the home chef. Russell Range is a pure example of small American Entrepreneurial**-~** 

### Companies which manufacture products created purely out of consumer,demand. The small group of manufacturers in this niche market, not to mention the other support companies such as shippers, distributors, dealerships and advertising companies will all 

### suffer greatly when we and ourproducts disappear. Which will 

### happen because of this particular rulemaking. Our niche was created when consumers began purchasing the same tools and equipment that professional chefs in restaurants havebeen using for many years. Large and small companies all 

### over the world such as, Cuisinart, Krups, General Housewares, Viking Range and others began supplyingproducts such as food processors, large heavy duty aluminum cookware, fine 

### cutlery, hand heldblenders .and high powered multi featured cooktops, ovens andranges. The simple fact is, that our small niche marketwas createdbecause our consumers, desire products that deliver as much energy as possible. This growing "GourmetIndustry" is coupled with tremendous sales in associated industries such as fine wines, cookbooks, sauces, gadgets, dinnerware and much more. At the forefront of this culinary 

### renaissance, are companies such as V1I<ING RANGE, WOLF 

### RANGE, GARLAND RANGE, FIVE STAR, SUB-ZERO, 

### NORmLAND and RUSSELL RANGE. All ofthese companies can trace their origins to the restaurant equipment industry where professional chefs are free to create food works of art

### because of the tools available 

### to them and the full range 

### of power they deliver. What we and the other companies created, are products that offer similar utility, but pass much stricter safety and efficiency 

### standards for home installation, than 

### do regular restaurant ranges. No continuous burningpilotlights, slightly lower BTIJ burners, zero clearance cabinets, push to turn

### knobs and more, are all 

### examples of the efforts we putinto improving the basic concept for the home owner. Now, consumers whom choose to have the cooking power and benefits of a professional range in their home kitchen, can. This 

### is a critical point. We are talking about the freedom to choose a high energy delivering product,because it suits their lifestyle. The fastest growing and most successful segment of the home building industry, in 

### the pastfew years, is 

### remodeling. Architects, designers and custombuilders alike 

### have recognized the flexibility, importance and demand for our high powered, 

### high capacity products. Statistically, the most commonly remodeled room in the home is the kitchen. That has 

### been true for some time, however, now they are larger, on average, then ever before, often including work islands, potracks, double ovens, big

### C-12

refrigerators, extra sinks arid most of all room to entertain in. Articles have been written about the "Cocooning of America", where, more and more good entertainment means friends and families gathering at the dinner table. The cooking enthusiast, is our customer and they demand the tools the professionals use. I have been told by my colleagues in the industry, that this energy use issue will not just go away and that my presentation should be about the pending elimination of Russell Range as a company if the test procedure, as outlined in the rulemaking is instituted. This test, by the way, was devised in a laboratory in 1977, a full 10 years before the first high powered household range was introduced. it is simply not an appropriate test procedure for our type of product We, as a small niche manufacturer in the appliance industry, need to inform you that we now exist and should be given a separate classification, so that new test procedures can be devised. That having been said, my executive chef and I wish to spend our small remaining amount of time here submitting to you that regulating the energy availability of a cooking appliance and the freedom to choose these products is akin to telling all painters that they can only use red from now on or that you can only have one tool in your workshop. It could also be dangerous. Who amongst you, wants the responsibility of making sure that people are cooking their chicken or pork thoroughly. Do you remember the problem that '7ack-In-The-Box" had recently because their griddles were not hot enough? And, if you say that they canjust cook it longer on the lower flame, then what energy are you saving? Cooking is pure creativity. The equipment we make delivers only energy, which the chef must harness and manipulate to create a meal. For thousands of years all around the world, people have devised different cooking methods using differnt energy sources, cookware, and ingredients. I am sure you have enjoyed Chinese, Italian, Mexican, and French foods. All of which are wonderful but each of which is different. The variables involved in cooking are complex and many. Every culture has developed their own styles and flavors. Convienience appliances around the world, on the other hand, all produce the same result. We don't go out of our way for ethnic refrigerators like we do for their food.
Here is my main point.
There are appliances of creativity, such as cook tops and ovens, and there are appliances of convenience, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters and clothes washers. The resulting utility of convenience appliances is universally accepted by all consumers. A clean dish is a clean dish. Now, if the convenience appliance industry can achieve those universal results more efficiently, it is good for everybody. However, cooking appliances cannot and must not be lumped into that same appliance category. The process of cooking escapes rigid standardization. How many ways do you know to cook a chicken? C-12 

### refrigerators, extra sinks and most of all 

### room to entertain in. 

### Articles have been written about the "Cocooning of America", where, more and more good entertainment means friends and families gathering at the dinner table. The cooking enthusiast, is our customer and they demand the tools the professionals use. I have been told by my colleagues in the industry, that this 

### energy useissue will 

### not just go away and that my presentation shouldbe about thepending elimination of

-- Russell Range as a company if

### the test procedure, as outlined in the rulemaking is instituted. This 

### test, 

### by the way, was devised in a laboratory in 1977, a full 

### 10 years before the first high poweredhousehold range was introduced. It is simply not an appropriate testprocedure for our type ofproduct. We, as a small niche

. manufacturer in the appliance industry, need to inform you that we now exist and shouldbe given a separate classification, so thatnew testprocedures can be 

### devised. That having been said, my executive chef 

### and I wish to spend our small remaining amount of time here submitting to you that regulating the energy availability of a cooking appliance and the freedom to choose these products is akin to telling all 

### painters that they can only usered from now on orthatyou can only have one tool in yourworkshop. It could also be dangerous. Who amongstyou, wants the responsibility of making sure thatpeople are cooking their chicken or pork thoroughly. Do you remember the problem that ''Jack-In-The-Box'' had recently because their griddles were nothot enough? And, if

### you saythat they canjustcook it longer on the lower flame, then what energy are you saving? Cooking is pure creativity. The equipment we make delivers only energy, which the chef 

### must harness and manipulate to create a meal. For thousands of years all around the world, people have devised different cooking methods using differnt energy sources, cookware, and ingredients.
I am sure you have enjoyed Chinese, Italian, Mexican, and French foods. All of which are wonderful but each of which is different. The variables involved in cooking are complex andmany. Every culturehas 

### developed their own styles and flavors. Convienience appliances around the world, on the other hand, all produce the sameresult. We don't go out ofour way for ethnicrefrigerators like we dofor their food.
Here is 

### my main point. There are appliances of creativity, such as cook tops and ovens, and there are appliances of convenience, such as dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters and clothes washers. The resulting utility of convenience appliances is universally accepted by all 

### consumers. A clean dish is a clean dish. Now, if

### the convenience appliance industry can achieve those universal results more efficiently, it is good for everybody. However, cooking appliances cannot and mustnotbe lumped into that same appliance category. Theprocess ofcookingescapes rigid standardization. How many ways do youknow to cook a chicken?

## APPLIANCES [UniversalBy 

## OF CONVENIENCE

accepted results]



## 9 

# APPLIANCES OF CREATIVITY.IAPPLIANCES OF CONVENIENCE [lnnnately variable results]



# • Cooktops
• Ovens [Universally accepted results]



# • Dishwashers • Garbage Disposals
• Compactors
• Clothes Washer
• Clothes Dryer

I 

# • Refrigerators
• Food Warmers • Countertop Appliances (Toaster, blender, food

processor) (') I I-' Vl

### C-14

Having the freedom to choose a high capacity cooking product gives the cooking enthusiast the full range of heat energy they need to be as creative as their favorite restaurant chef. In cooking, high power burners are only used at maximum output for particular cooking operations and when cooking large quantities of food in large cookware. It is that power availability on demand that our customers want and is a special utility that all great chefs will tell you is a mu.t.
I would now like the executive chef at Russell Range, Mr. Bill Hughes to comment on the special utility we offer the consumer and its importance in cooking. (After Mr. Hughes) In summary, the entire segment of the market we call "high-capacity" cooking products is very unique. Consumer driven, they are products chosen because they deliver cooking abilities impossible to achieve with low energy consuming products and suit the lifestyle of a growing segment of the population. Certainly, if nothing else, high capacity products like ours must be judged and tested under different considerations. The test criteria as written in 1977 simply did. not anticipate the oversized burners and extra large capacity ovens that we now make. This graphic illustrates the simple fact that much of our burners usable energy is lost when a 9" block is placed on our burner in the high position. It is the opinion of Russell Range, however, that the Department of Energy should reanalyze the wisdom of mandating restrictions on all creativity appliances. Indeed, the enthusiasm for great cooking that products like ours make possible, is perhaps one of the best ways that we as a country can get back the family values we seem to be losing. Look into your own past and I'm sure that many great memories are of your family at the dinner table. Limiting the creative freedoms in cooking whether professionally or for ones family and friends would be a mistake.

Thank you C-14



### Having the freedom to 

### choose a high capacity cooking productgives the cooking enthusiast the full 

### range ofheatenergy they need to be as creative as their favorite restaurant chef.
In cooking, high power burners are only used atmaximum output for particular cooking operations and when cooking large quantities offood in

### large cookware. It is 

### that power availability on demand that our customers want and is 

### a special utility -' that all 

### great chefs will tell 

### you is 

### a**m~t.** 

### I would now like the executive chef at Russell Range, Mr. Bill Hughes to comment on the special utility we offer the consumer and its importance in 

### cooking. (After Mr. Hughes)
In summary, the entire segment of the market we call 

### "high-capacity" cooking products is 

### very unique. Consumer driven, they are products chosen because they deliver cooking abilities impossible to achieve with low energy consuming products and suit the lifestyle of a growing segment of the population. Certainly, if

### nothing 

### else, high capacityproducts like ours mustbejudged and tested under different considerations. The test criteria as written in 

### 1977 simply didnot anticipate the oversizedburners and extra large capacity ovens that we now make. 

### This graphicillustrates the simple fact thatmuch of ourburners usable energy is lostwhen a 9" block is 

### placed on our burner in 

### the high position.
It is the opinion of Russell Range, however, that the Department ofEnergy should reanalyze the wisdom of mandating restrictions on all 

### creativity appliances. Indeed, the enthusiasm for great cooking thatproducts like ours make possible, is 

### perhaps oneofthebest ways thatwe as a country can getbackthefamily values we seemto be lOSing. Look into your own past and I'm surethatmany greatmemories are of your family at the dinner table. Untiting the creative freedoms in 

### cooking whether professionally or for ones family and friends would be a mistake.

Thank youC-15



### Good afternoon. I am Bill Hughes, executive chef for Russell Range. I appear before you today as a cook not a scientist It would be more natural for me to speak of a favorite recipe, a memorable lunch or a great dinner. Yet, cooking is science, too. Consider that each of the basic principles of heat transfer- conduction, convection, and radiation-p combined with a specific cooking method- roasting, sauté, stir-fry-achieve unique results. What happens to food when we begin to cook appears to be quite simple. Browning is anything but simple. It involves sugars- both complex and simple- their molecules and polymers reacting in hundreds ofdifferent ways. Browning produces flavors that are characteristic of the cooking process, rather than enhancing or modifying the flavors that are intrinsic to the food itself as one achieves through seasoning. Browning takes place at a significant rate only at relative high temperature. Large amounts of energy are required to force the initial molecular interactions. In other words, the surface temperature must rise fast enough to sear the outside of the food and not allow the internal temperature to reach 212 degrees F. These surface temperatures vary between 300 and 500 degrees. The simple act of heating a pan of water on the stove involves radiation and convection from a gas flame, conduction through the pan and convection in the water. it is therefore difficult to understand how heating a block of aluminum using conduction only- can begin to assess the kind of heat required in order to cook properly. Techniques such as baking and griddle cooking have reference made to them as far back as 6,000 b.c. Pan frying, stir-frying, and sautéing all enjoy long histories. All have been refined with subtleties developed, nuances enjoyed. All require the application of high heat at sometime during the cooking process. Peanut oil used in stir fry heats to 440 degrees before it begins to smoke. Safflower oil to 510 degrees. The demand for our product comes from the simple fact that low power conventional cook tops are incapable for producing the same desired result as high power cooktops. This is why our stirfry vegetable at home never measure up to those at our favorite Asian restaurant. Insufficient heat to maintain temperature high enough to sear the out side before the interior reaches 212 degrees and begins to give off their liquids.
Irene Kuo in The Key to Chinese Cooking states that 'The importance of capturing and retaining the heat of the pan and the energy of fast stirring within the dish cannot be overemphasized. And Barbara Tropp writes in The Modem Art of Chinese Cooking that "without a steady source of truly high heat with which to begin, stir-frying is next to impossible. C-15


### Good afternoon. I am Bill Hughes, executive cheffor Russell Range. I appear before you today as a cook not a scientist. Itwould be 

### morenaturalfor me to speak of a favorite recipe, a memorable lunch or a great dinner. Yet, cooking is 

### science, too. 

### Consider that each of thebasic principles ofheat transfer- conduction, convection, and radiation

... combined with a specific cooking method- roasting, saute, stir-tty-achieve unique results. What happens to food when webegin to cook appears to be quite simple. Browning is 

### anythingbutsimple. -' It involves sugars- both complex and simple- their molecules and polymers reacting in hundreds ofdifferent ways.
.. Browning produces flavors that are characteristic ofthe cooking process, rather than enhancing or modifying the flavors that are intrinsic to the food itself as one achieves through seasoning. Browning takes place at a significant rate only atrelative high temperature. Large amounts of energy are required to force the initial molecular interactions. In other words, the surface temperature mustrise fast enough to sear the outside ofthe food and not allow the internal temperature to reach 212 degrees F. These surface temperatures varybetween 300 and 500 degrees. The simple act of heating a pan ofwater on the stove involves radiation and convection from a gas flame, conduction through the pan and·convection in the water. It is 

### therefore difficult to understand how heating a block of aluminum using conduction only- canbegin to assess thekind ofheatrequired in orderto cook properly. Techniques such as baking and griddle cooking havereference made to them as far back as 6,000 b.c. Panfrying, stir-frying, and sauteing all 

### enjoylonghistories. All have been refined with subtleties developed, nuances enjoyed. All require the application ofhigh heat at sometime during the cooking process. Peanutoil used in 

### stir

### fry heats to440 degreesbeforeit

### begins to smoke. Saffloweroilto510 degrees.
The demand for our product comes from the simple fact thatlow power conventional cook tops are incapable for producing the same desired result as high power cooktops. This is 

### why our stirfry vegetable athome never measure up to those at our favorite Asian restaurant. Insufficient heat to maintain temperature high enough to 

### sear the out sidebefore the interior reaches 212 degrees and

### begins to give off their liquids.
Irene Kuo in 

### The Key to Chinese Cooking states that ''The importance of capturing and retaining the heat of the pan and the energy of fast stirring within the dish cannot be 

### overemphasized. And Barbara Tropp writes in 

### The Modern Art 

### ofChinese Cooking that "without a steady source oftruly high heat with which to begin, stir-frying is 

### nexttoimpossible.

### C-16

The use of high heat is called for at some time every cuisine. Paul Prudhomme writes in The Louisiana Kitchen of using high heat to achieve the results of his famous blacken redflsh.
As a cook I am concerned that my ability to call upon the tools of the trade may be restricted. There are homes throughout the country that, out of want or necessity, use large, oversized cookware. It is not unusual in the preparation ofMexican food to use a 15 to 20 quart stock pot. The ability to cook small amounts offood faststirfry and sauté- or to cook large amounts of food efficiently and economically is the spedflc utility that is endangered. To attain safe levels of heat, maintain those levels and to cook evenly the cook must call upon the unique utility of high heat capability. Imagine trying to cook a couple of chickens in a 14 inch skillet over a 2 1/2 inch burner. Virtually all recipes- designed for the home or the restaurant professional chefemploy the use of timing. Why?- because certain taste, flavors, and textures are sought. It takes time, coupled with heat, combined with ingredients to make the food we eat everyday. 

### Fmally, having the high energy/high flame utility available is akin to using the passing gear in your car. You use it when its called for, not a 100 % of the time. C-16


### The use ofhigh heat is called 

### for at some time 

### every cwsme. Paul Prudhomme writes in The Louisiana Kitchen of using high heat to 

### achieve the 

### results ofhis famous blacken redfish.
As 

### a cookI am concerned thatmy abilityto call uponthetools ofthe trade maybe 

### restricted. There are homes throughout the country that, out ofwant or necessity, use large, oversized cookware. Itis 

### not unusualin thepreparation ofMexican food to 

### use a 15 to

### 20 quart

### stockpot. The ability

### to cook smallamounts offood faststirfry and saute- or to 

### cook large amounts offood effidently and economically is 

### the specific utility that is 

### endangered. To attain safe levels ofheat, maintain those levels and to 

### cook evenlythe cook must call uponthe unique utility ofhigh heat capability. Imagine trying to 

### cook a couple of chickens in a 14 inch skilletover a 2 1/2inchburner. Virtually all redpes- designed for the home or the restaurant professional chefemploy the use oftiming. Why?- because certain taste, flavors, and textures are sought. It takes time, coupled with heat, combined with ingredients to make the food weeateveryday. Fmally, having the high energy/high flame utility available is akin 

### to 

### using the passing gearinyour car. You useitwhen its called for, not a 100 % 

### ofthetime.

### ALUMINUM TEST BLOCK



## 9
-.1 

### 4- BURNER CAP



# INAPPROPRIATE TEST CRITERIA



# l4 112" 

# DIA.øI ALUMINUM TEST BLOCK

# ~**~. --------------------------~** 

.. 9 11 

# DIA. 

# .....r

# f\



# +, r

# ~

# ,**""',~ -~~.-~---**  

# ,q( ""**I~/"** I-LOST ENERGY

# I 

# " I.',' 

# +,

-**I/llllllf~'** .,Ill II l

# ~ ~ IIU1tNmt CAl'

# I~ 4 

# 112" DIA.•

# I

INAPPROPRIATE TEST CRITERIA ('"') I

...... -..JC-18 C-18