1

- i CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUM ENT

................................ ................................ ................. 1

- 1

1.2 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS

................................ ................................ ..... 1

- 1

1.3 OVERVIEW OF STANDARD S FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY

POWER CONSUMPTION

................................ ................................ .............................. 1

- 5

1.4 PROCESS FOR ESTABLIS HING ENERGY CONERVAT ION STANDARDS

.......... 1

- 5

1.4.1 Process Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1

- 6

1.4.2 Procedures, Analyses, and Stakeholder Involvement

................................ ...................... 1

- 6

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE DOC UMENT

................................ ................................ .......... 1

- 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.4.1 Analyses Performed Under the Process Rule

................................ ...................... 1

- 71-1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUM ENT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is evaluat ing new energy efficiency standards for

r esidential microwave ovens, specifically as regards the electricity they consume in standby (non

- operating) mode. This document, termed a technical support document (TSD)

, is a stand

alone report that describ es the technical analyses performed and results obtained to examine the standby power consum ed by microwave oven s

. This TSD was prepared in support of DOE’s supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking ( S NOPR) for residential microwave ovens

— standby power consumption

.

1.2 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS

DOE’s analyses indicate that the proposed standards for microwave oven standby power would save a significant amount of energy

– an estimated 0.41 quads over 30 years (2014 through

204 3 ). According to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook

20 10 ( AEO 2010 ), total residential energy consumption is projected to be 21.3 quads in 2015. The amount of energy saved over 30 years is equivalent to two percent of the projected household energy use.

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards for products s hipped in 2014

– 2043, in 20 10 $, ranges from $ 1. 82 b illion (at a 7

- percent discount rate) to $ 3.59 billion (at a 3

- percent discount rate). a The NPV is the estimated total value of future operating

- cost savings during the analysis period, minus the

estimated increased product costs, discounted to 2011 . The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2014 to 2043). Using a real discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates that
INPV for manufacturers of all microwave ovens in the base case is $1. 1 billion in 2010$ . If DOE adopts the proposed standard, it expects manufacturers will lose 4 .7 to 6

. 5 percent of their INPV,

or approximately $ 52.9 million to $ 73.6 mi llion. Using a 7

- percent discount rate, the NPV of consumer costs and savings from today’s proposed standards would amount to 25 to 34 times the total estimated industry losses. Using a 3

- percent discount rate, the NPV would amount to 49 to

68 times the to tal estimated industry losses.

The projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual consumers are positive

. For example

, for Microwave

- Only and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens

a DOE uses discount rates of 7 and 3 percent based on guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB

Circu lar A

- 4, section E, September 17, 2003).1-2 (Product Class 1), the estimated average life

- cycle c ost (LCC) savings in 2010$ are $1 3

, and all

consumers of these products would have positive economic impacts. For Built

- In and Over

- the

Range Combination Microwave Ovens (Product Class 2), the estimated average LCC savings in 2010$ are $4, and most consume rs of this product would have positive economic impacts.

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. The

energy savings projected from the proposed standards would result in cumulative greenhouse gas

emission reduct ions of 31.48 million metric tons (Mt) b of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in 2014

– 2043. During this period, the proposed standards would result in emissions reductions of 25.6 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and have a negligible impact on emissions of mercury (Hg). c DOE

estimates the present monetary value of the CO 2 emissions reduction is between $ 139 million
and $ 2,118 million, expressed in 20 10$. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the

NO X emissions reduction, expressed in 20 10 $, is between $ 3.82 mill ion and $ 39.3 million at a 7

- percent discount rate, and between $ 7.44 million and $ 76.4 million at a 3

- percent discount rate. d

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of

annualized values over a 30

- year period. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the

ann ualized national economic value of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in pr oduct purchase costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO 2 emission

reductions

. e

K The value of the CO 2 reductions, otherwise known as the S ocial C ost of C arbon ( SCC), is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO 2 developed by a recent interagency process. The monetary costs and benefits of cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2010$ to permit comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar

units. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.

.

b Results for NO X and Hg are presented in short tons. A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons.

c DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

Ref erence case forecast. As noted in TSD chapter 16, this forecast accounts for regulatory emissions reductions through 2009, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 (Ma y 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including the currently proposed CAIR replacement rule, the Clean Air Transport Rule (75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010)), do not appear in the base

case.

d DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriat e range of values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

e DOE used a two

- step calculation process to convert the time

- series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in the same year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. To calculate the present value, DOE used discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except

for the value of CO 2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of dis count rates, as shown in Table 1.1 . From the present value, DOE then calculated the corresponding ti me

- series of fixed annual payments over a 30

- year period starting in the same year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time

series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined would be a steady stream of payments

.1-3 Although combining the values of operating savings and CO 2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, whereas

the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings a nd CO 2 savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of microwave ovens shipped in 2014

– 204 3 . The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the presen t value of all future

climate

- related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of CO 2 in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2 100

.

Table 1.1 shows the annualized values for the proposed standards, expressed in 20 10 $

. The results under th e primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7

- percent discount rate for

benefits and costs other than CO 2 reductions , for which DOE used a 3

- percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $2 2.3 /ton in 2010, the cost of the

stand ards proposed in today’s rule is $20 .3 million per year in increased product costs, while the annualized benefits are $167 million in reduced product operating costs, $35.4 million in CO 2 reductions, and $1.74 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case , the net benefit amounts to $184 million per year. Using a 3

- percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $2 1.6 million per year in increased product costs, while the annualized benefits are $205 million in reduced operating costs, $35.4 million in CO 2 reductions, and $2.14 million

in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $2 2 1 million per year.1-4 Table 1

. 1 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode for Products Sold in 2014

- 2043

Discount Rate Primary

Estimate * Low Estimate * High

Estimate *

Monetized ( mil lion 20 10 $/year

Benefits )

Operating Cost Savings 7% 167 150 185

3% 205 182 229

CO 2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 9.02 8.49 9.55

CO 2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 35.4 33.3 37.6

CO 2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 55.9 52.5 59.3

CO 2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 108 .0 101.5 114.6

NO X Reduction at $2,537/t** 7% 1.74 1.65 1.82

3% 2.14 2.02 2.26

Total † 7% plus CO 2 range 178 to 277 160 to 253 196 to 301

7% 204 185 224

3% 243 217 269

3% plus CO 2 range 216 to 315 193 to 286 241 to 346

Costs

Incremental Product Costs 7% 20.32 23.39 20.25

3% 21.59 25.48 21.48

Total Net Benefits

Total † 7% plus CO 2 range 157 to 256 137 to 230 176 to 281

7% 184 162 204

3% 221 192 247

3% plus CO 2 range 195 to 294 167 to 260 219 to 324

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010

** The CO 2 values represent global values (in 2010$ ) of the social cost of CO 2 emissions in 2010 under several
scenarios. The values of $ 4. 9

, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5

- percent , 3

- pe rcent , and 2.5

- percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $6 7.6 per ton represents the 95 th
percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3

- percent discount rate. The value for NO X (in 20 10 $) is the average of the low and high values used i n DOE’s analysis. Reference case

, Low Economic Growth case , and High Economic Growth case , respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a declining trend (default learning rate) for produ ct prices in the Primary Estimate, constant prices (no learning rate) for product prices in the Low Estimate, and a declining trend (high learning rate) in the High Estimate. The derivation and application of learning rates for product prices is explained in section IV.D.1.1-5 † Total Benefits for both the 3

- percent and 7

- percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3

- percent discount rate, which is $22 .3 /ton in 2010 (in 2010 $). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO 2 range” and “3% plus CO 2
range ,” the operating cost and NO X benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO 2 values.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF STANDARD S FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY

POWER CONSUMPTION

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291

– 6309 ; EPCA ) established an energy conservation program for major household appliances. A mong the subsequent a mendments made to EPCA wa s one giving DOE the authority to regulate the energy efficiency of several products, including re sidential microwave ovens

, which are the focus of this document. The amendments to EPCA in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 ( 42 U.S.C. 6291

– 6309 ; NAECA) prescribed energy conservation standards for cooking products, as well as stipula ting requirements for determining whether th o se standards should be

amended. DOE is considering amending standards for microwave ovens, specifically standards that prescribe the maximum electricity consum ed when the oven is in stand by (non

- operat ing)

mode.

Following NAECA direct ives, DOE conduct ed two cycles of rulemaking to evaluate the

need for more stringen t standards for both gas and electric cooking products

. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (h)(1)

- (2)) DOE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on March 4, 19 94, proposing performance standards for eight gas and electric residential cooking products, including

microwave ovens. 59 FR 10464. Based on the July 15, 1996, Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Produ cts (the so

- called Process

Rule ), DOE refined its analysis of cooking products. 61 FR 36974

. DOE issued a final rule on September 8, 1998, that covered only electric cooking products, including microwave ovens. 63

FR 48038.

1.4 PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING ENERGY CONERVATION STANDARD S

Under EPCA, when DOE evaluat es a new or amended energy conservation standard, it

must consider seven factors to the greatest extent practicable : (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(2)(B)(i))

1. the economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected product;

2. the savings in operating costs throug hout the estimated average lifetime of the product compared to any increases in purchase price or maintenance cost s ; 3. the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. any lessening of the utility or performance of the product likely to result from the imposition of the standard;1-6 5. the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. the need for national energy conservation; and

7. other factors the Sec retary of Energy considers relevant.

Other statutory requirements are set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(1)

– (2)(A), (2)(B)(i i)

– (iii) and (3)

– (4)

, and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e). Before DOE determines whether to adopt a n energy conservation standard, it must solicit comments on the proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) Any new or amended standard must be designed to achieve sig nificant additional conservation of energy and must be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) To determine whether economic justification exists, DOE must review comments on the propos ed standard and conclude that th e benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable, weighing the seven factors listed above. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(2)(B)(i))

1.4.1 Process Rule

In conducting rulemakings for both appliance test procedures and energy conservation

stan dards, DOE employ s the procedures set forth in the 1996 Process Rule described in section

1.2 . DOE applied those procedures to the extent they were appropriate for develop ing energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby power . The Process Rule greatly enhance s opportunities for receiving public input and improv ing analytic approaches. The Process Rule

sets forth policies and guidelines for providing early public review and consultation with interested parties regarding design options, proposed s tandard s , and the final standard. Design options are identified and screened based on (1) technological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (3) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (4) adverse impacts on health or safety ( Process Rule at section 4(a)(4)). 61 FR 36982. The Process

Rule also requires DOE to evaluate uncertainty and variability in analytical results through the use of scenario or probability analysis

.

The Process Rule calls for experts and interested parties to review the analyses, including (1) the qualitative and quantitative analytical methods used ; (2) the economic, engineering, and

life

- cycle cost analyses; and (3) impacts on manufacturers and consumers, national energy savings, the ec onomy, and the environment . See appendix A to subpart C of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 430 (10 CFR Part 430).

1.4.2 Procedures, Analyses

, and Stakeholder Involvement

DOE considers stakeholder participation vital to a balanced discussion of the information required for a standards rulemaking and to the adoption of energy conservation standards that are, to the extent practicable, consensus

- based

. DOE actively encourages the participation and

interaction of all stakeholders by providing for mal public notifications via the Federal Register

and by designating comment periods at each major step in a standards rulemaking. DOE publishes a formal public notice of the ini tial f ramework d ocument

, then an advance notice of1-7 proposed rulemaking ( ANOPR ) , which is designed to publicly vet the models and tools used in the rulemaking and to facilitate public participation before the proposed standards are evaluated

in detail. Next DOE publishes in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NOPR )

, which presents a discussion of comments received in response to the ANOPR; analys e s of the impacts of standards on consumers, manufacturers, and the nation; DOE ’s weighting of th o se impacts; and the proposed standards. Lastly, DOE publishes in the Federal Register the f inal

r ule, which includes a discussion of comments received in response to the NOPR; the revised analysis of the impacts of standards; DOE ’s weighting of th o se impacts; the standard ( s ) DOE is adopt ing ; and the effective date ( s ) of the standa rd ( s )

.

Table 1. 4 .1 lists the analyses that are performed at each step of a standards rulemaking Following the Process Rule, a nalyses are reported, examined, revised, and expanded throughout the process.

Table 1.4.1 Analyses Performed Under the Process Rule

ANOPR N OPR Final Rule

Market and technology assessment Revised ANOPR analyses Revised NOPR analyses Plus:

Screening analysis Engineering analysis Life

- cycle cost analysis for

identified subgroups

Energy ( and water ) use determination Manufacturer impact analys is

Markups for determining product price Utility impact analysis

Life

- cycle cost and payback period analysis Environmental assessment

Shipments analysis Employment impact analysis

National impact analysis Regulatory impact analysis

Preliminary m anufacturer impact analysis

On March 27 , 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register a Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking

Products (the f ramework d ocument ) , which describ ed the p rocedural and analytical approaches

DOE anticipated using to evaluate the develop ment of energy conservation standards for the

named products . This document is available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products.html At that

time DOE also announced in the Federal Register the date, time, and place of a public meeting at

which the framework document would be di scussed.

DOE held the public meeting on April 27 , 2006 , to discuss procedural and analytical approaches to the rulemaking and to inform and facilitate stakeholder involvement in the rulemaking process. The analytical framework presented at the public me eting described the

various analyses to be performed , such as the engineering analysis and the life

- cycle cost (LCC)1-8 and payback period (PBP) analysis ; the methods proposed for conducting the analyses; and the relationships among the analyses.

During the April 2006 meeting, stakeholders commented about vari ous issues related to the rulemaking for all the considered products . Comments relevant to the rulemaking for microwave oven standby power concerned:

1. current DOE test procedure ; 2. definition of baseline unit s ; 3. number of product classes;

4. consideration of limiting standby power as a design option for all considered products;

5. technology options for improving efficiency of all considered products;

6. type of approach to employ for the engineering analysis;

7. e fficiency levels to consider for all considered products;

8. proposed approaches for specifying typical annual energy ( and water ) consumption for all considered products;

9. potential data sources for characterizing variability in annual energy (and water)

con sumption;

10. typical distribution channels and markups;

11. data sources for retail prices;

12. type of approach to employ for the LCC and PBP analys is ; 13. variability of forecasted energy prices;

14. relationship of repair, maintenance, and installation cost s to produ ct efficiency;

15. product lifetimes;

16. development of consumer discount rates;

17. effects of purchase price on product shipments; and

18. identification of consumer subgroups.

Written s takeholder comments

, submitted during the comment period for the f ramework

d oc ument

, elaborated on the issues raised at the public meeting. DOE worked with its contractors

to provide that the analyses would address the identified issues.

I n preparation for developing the ANOPR

, DOE organized and held interviews with

manufacturers of microwave ovens. DOE selected companies that rang ed from small to large manufacturers, includ ing both members of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ( AHAM ) and n on

- AHAM member companies. T he interviews were intended to achieve four objective s

. 1. Solicit feedback on the draft engineering analysis (including methodology, production costs, manufacturing processes, and findings)

. 2. S olicit feedback on the preliminary manufacturer impact analysis

. 3. P rovide an opportunity, early in the rulemaking pr ocess, for manufacturers to express specific concerns to DOE

. 4. F oster cooperation between the manufacturers and DOE

.1-9 S ix general topics related to the preliminary engineering analysis and manufacturer impact analysis were discussed during the interviews

, including:

1. key issues identified by DOE and/or the manu facturer ; 2. shipment projections;

3. capital conversion costs;

4. product mix and profitability;

5. market shares and industry consolidation; and

6. cumulative regulatory burden.

To meet the objectives of the Process Rule

, DOE developed spreadsheets models for the LCC, PBP, and national impact analyses for microwave ovens

. DOE developed an LCC spreadsheet that calculates the LCC and PBP at various energy efficiency levels. DOE also developed a national imp act analysis spreadsheet that calculates the national energy savings (NES) and national net present values at various energy efficiency l evels. This spreadsheet

includes a model that forecasts the effe cts of energy efficiency standards at various levels on product shipments. All the spreadsheets are available on the DOE website . Spreadsheets specific to cooking products, including microwave ovens, are found at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products_anopr_tools

.html

On November 15, 2007, DOE published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Residential Dishwashers, Dehu midifiers, and Cooking Products, and
Commercial Clothes Washers, which described potential new energy conservation standards for

the named product types and announced a public meeting to receive comments. This document is

available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products.html

.

DOE held a public meeting on December 13, 2007, to provide stakeholders the

op portunity to comment on the ANOPR and the analytical framework, models, and tools ( e.g. , LCC and NES spreadsheets) that DOE used to evaluate the impacts of energy conservation standards; the results of the preliminary analyses; and the candidate energy eff iciency levels.

After stakeholders c ommented on the ANOPR at the public meeting and in writing during the comment period

, DOE again interviewed manufacturers of microwave ovens in support of the manufacturer impact analysis for the NOPR. This second rou nd of interviews addressed 13 topics, some of which visited a gain and in greater detail the six topics discussed during initial interviews. The 13 topics were:

1. key issues identified by DOE and/or the manufacturer

2. overview of company and organizational cha racteristics;

3. company financial parameters;

4. breakdown of production cost s ;
5. shipment projections and market shares;

6. product mixes;

7. conversion costs;

8. markups and profitability;1-10 9. cumulative regulatory burden;

10. exports, foreign competition, and outsourci ng; 11. assessment of direct impacts on employment;

12. market consolidation; and

13. baseline products and alternative design options.

DOE incorporated the information gathered at the interviews , as well as during the public meeting and comment period, into its engineering analysis ( c hapter 5 of this TSD ) and preliminary manufacturer impact analysis ( c hapter 1 3 of this TSD ) for the NOPR

. In addition, the Department conducted all the analyses list ed in Table 1.3.1 that are required for the NOPR phase of a rulemak ing. Taking into consideration the seven factors stipulated in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i), which are listed in section 1.3 , and comments received from intereste d parties, the Department analyzed four trial standard levels f or microwave oven standby power

.

This TSD for the Department’s S NOPR for microwave oven standby power outlines the analytical method s used in this rulemaking and the results of the analyses performed

.

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE DOC UMENT

This TSD compr ises 17 chapters and 1 6 appendices.

Chapter 1 Introduction: provides an overview of the appliance standards pr ogram and how it applies to this rulemaking, and outlines the structure of the

document.

Chapter 2 Analytical Framework: describes the rulemak ing process.

Chapter 3 Market and Technology Assessment: characterizes the market for

microwave ovens and the technologies available for decreasing standby power consumption

.

Chapter 4 Screening Analysis: identifies the technol ogies and design option s available to decrease microwave oven standby power and determines

which of those are viable for consideration in the engineering analysis.

Chapter 5 Engineering Analysis: discusses the methods used to develop the relationship between increased manufact urer price and increased efficiency.

Chapter 6 Markups Analysis : discusses the methods used for establishing markups for converting manufacturer costs to customer retail prices

.1-11 Chapter 7 Energy Use Analysis: discusses the pro cess used for generating e nergy

use estimates for the considered products as a function of standard

levels.

Chapter 8 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis: discusses the effects of

standards on individual consumers and users of microwave ovens; compares the LCC and PBP of products with and without higher efficiency standards.

Chapter 9 Shipments Analysis: discusses the methods used for forecasting shipments with and without higher efficiency standards, including how product purchase decisions are economically influenced a nd how DOE

model s this relationship with econometric equations

.

Chapter 10 National Impact Analysis: Discusses the methods used for forecasting national energy consumption and national economic impacts based on annual product shipments and estimates of f uture product energy efficiency distributions in the absence and presence of amended energy

conservation standards

.

Chapter 1 1 Life

- Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis: discusses the effects of standards

on different subgroups of consumers and compares the LCC and PBP of products with and without higher efficiency standards for these

consumers

.

Chapter 1 2 Manufacturer Impact Analysis: discusses the effects of standards on the finances and profitability of product manufacturers.

Chapter 1 3 Employment Impact A nalysis: discusses the effects of standards on national employment.

Chapter 1 4 Utility Impact Analysis: discusses the effects of standards on electric and gas utilities.

Chapter 1 5 Environmental Assessment: discusses the effects of standards on

emissio ns of carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) , nitrogen oxides (NO

x ), and mercury

.

Chapter 1 6 Moneti zation o f Emission Reductions Benefits : discusses the basis for the estimated monetary values used for the reduced emissions of CO 2 and other pollutants that are expected to result from each of the TSLs

considered

.

Chapter 1 7 Regulatory Impact Analysis: discusses the impact of non

- regulatory alternatives to efficiency standards.1-12 Appendix 5A AHAM Data Submittal

Appendix 5B Microwave Oven Standby Power Testing Regression Me thodology

Appendix 5C Microwave Oven Display Configurations

Appendix 7A RECS 2005 Variables and Values

Appendix 8A User Instructions for the LCC Spreadsheet

Appendix 8B Uncertainty and Variabil i ty

Appendix 8C Distributions Used for Discount Rates

A ppendix 8 D Rebuttable Payback Analysis Results

Appendix 8E Forecast of Equipment Price Trends for Microwave Ovens

Appendix 10 A User Instructions for the NIA Spreadsheet

Appendix 1 0B NES and NPV Using Alternative Economic Growth Scenarios

Appendix 1 0C N ational Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits and Emissions Reductions using Alternative Product Price Forecasts

Appendix 12A Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guides

Appendix 12B Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) Overview

Appendix 16 A Soc ial Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive

Order 12866

Appendix 17A Regulatory Impact Analysis Supporting Material