1-i

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT ................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS ..................................................................... 1-1

1.3 OVERVIEW OF STANDARDS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY 

POWER CONSUMPTION.............................................................................................. 1-5

1.4 PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING ENERGY CONERVATION 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 DOCUMENT.......................................................................... 1-10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.4.1 Analyses Performed Under the Process Rule ...................................................... 1-7
1-1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT

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

residential microwave ovens, specifically as regards the electricity they consume in standby 

(non-operating) mode. This document, termed a technical support document (TSD), is a standalone report that describes the technical analyses performed and results obtained to examine the 

standby power consumed by microwave ovens. This TSD was prepared in support of DOE’s

supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) 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 

2043). According to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 

2010 (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 shipped in 2014–2043, in 2010$, ranges from $1.82 billion 

(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 million. 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 total 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 

Circular A-4, section E, September 17, 2003). 
1-2

(Product Class 1), the estimated average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings in 2010$ are $13, and all 

consumers of these products would have positive economic impacts. For Built-In and Over-theRange Combination Microwave Ovens (Product Class 2), the estimated average LCC savings in 

2010$ are $4, and most consumers 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 reductions of 31.48 million metric tons (Mt)b of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2014–2043. 

During this period, the proposed standards would result in emissions reductions of 25.6 tons of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and have a negligible impact on emissions of mercury (Hg).c DOE 

estimates the present monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction is between $139 million

and $2,118 million, expressed in 2010$. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the 

NOX emissions reduction, expressed in 2010$, is between $3.82 million 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 

annualized 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 product purchase costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and 

(2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.

e

K

The value of the CO2 reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon 

(SCC), is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO2 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 NOX 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) 

Reference 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 (May 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 appropriate 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 CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table 1.1. From the 

present value, DOE then calculated the corresponding time-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 timeseries 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 CO2 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 CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 

savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of microwave ovens 

shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future 

climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of CO2 in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Table 1.1 shows the annualized values for the proposed standards, expressed in 2010$.

The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate 

along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the 

standards 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 CO2

reductions, and $1.74 million in reduced NOX 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 $21.6 million per year in increased product costs, while the annualized benefits 

are $205 million in reduced operating costs, $35.4 million in CO2 reductions, and $2.14 million 

in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $221 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 (million 2010$/year

Benefits

)

Operating Cost Savings

7% 167 150 185

3% 205 182 229

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 9.02 8.49 9.55

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 35.4 33.3 37.6

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 55.9 52.5 59.3

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 108.0 101.5 114.6

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**

7% 1.74 1.65 1.82

3% 2.14 2.02 2.26

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 178 to 277 160 to 253 196 to 301

7% 204 185 224

3% 243 217 269

3% plus CO2 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 CO2 range 157 to 256 137 to 230 176 to 281

7% 184 162 204

3% 221 192 247

3% plus CO2 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 CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 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-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th

percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the 

average of the low and high values used in 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 product 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 CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are 

added to the full range of CO2 values.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF STANDARDS 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. Among the 

subsequent amendments made to EPCA was one giving DOE the authority to regulate the energy 

efficiency of several products, including residential 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 stipulating requirements for determining whether those standards should be 

amended. DOE is considering amending standards for microwave ovens, specifically standards 

that prescribe the maximum electricity consumed when the oven is in standby (non-operating) 

mode.

Following NAECA directives, DOE conducted two cycles of rulemaking to evaluate the 

need for more stringent 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, 1994, 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 Products (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 STANDARDS

Under EPCA, when DOE evaluates 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 throughout the estimated average lifetime of the 

product compared to any increases in purchase price or maintenance costs; 

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 Secretary of Energy considers relevant. 

Other statutory requirements are set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(1)–(2)(A), (2)(B)(ii)–(iii) 

and (3)–(4), and 42 U.S.C. 6316(e). Before DOE determines whether to adopt an 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 significant 

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 proposed standard and conclude that the 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 

standards, DOE employs 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 developing energy 

conservation standards for microwave oven standby power. The Process Rule greatly enhances

opportunities for receiving public input and improving analytic approaches. The Process Rule 

sets forth policies and guidelines for providing early public review and consultation with 

interested parties regarding design options, proposed standards, 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 economy, 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 formal 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 initial framework document, then an advance notice of 
1-7

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; analyses of the 

impacts of standards on consumers, manufacturers, and the nation; DOE’s weighting of those 

impacts; and the proposed standards. Lastly, DOE publishes in the Federal Register the final 

rule, which includes a discussion of comments received in response to the NOPR; the revised 

analysis of the impacts of standards; DOE’s weighting of those impacts; the standard(s) DOE is 

adopting; and the effective date(s) of the standard(s).

Table 1.4.1 lists the analyses that are performed at each step of a standards rulemaking 

Following the Process Rule, analyses are reported, examined, revised, and expanded throughout 

the process.

Table 1.4.1 Analyses Performed Under the Process Rule

ANOPR NOPR Final Rule

Market and technology assessment

Revised ANOPR analyses Revised NOPR 

Plus: analyses

Screening analysis

Engineering analysis

Life-cycle cost analysis for

identified subgroups

Energy (and water) use determination Manufacturer impact analysis

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 manufacturer 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 framework document), which described the procedural and analytical approaches 

DOE anticipated using to evaluate the development 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 discussed.

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 meeting 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 various 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 units; 

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. efficiency 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) 

consumption; 

10. typical distribution channels and markups; 

11. data sources for retail prices; 

12. type of approach to employ for the LCC and PBP analysis; 

13. variability of forecasted energy prices; 

14. relationship of repair, maintenance, and installation costs to product 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 stakeholder comments, submitted during the comment period for the framework 

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

to provide that the analyses would address the identified issues.

In preparation for developing the ANOPR, DOE organized and held interviews with 

manufacturers of microwave ovens. DOE selected companies that ranged from small to large 

manufacturers, including both members of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) and non-AHAM member companies. The interviews were intended to achieve four 

objectives. 

1. Solicit feedback on the draft engineering analysis (including methodology, 

production costs, manufacturing processes, and findings).

2. Solicit feedback on the preliminary manufacturer impact analysis.

3. Provide an opportunity, early in the rulemaking process, for manufacturers to 

express specific concerns to DOE.

4. Foster cooperation between the manufacturers and DOE.
1-9

Six 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 manufacturer;

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 impact analysis spreadsheet that calculates the national energy savings 

(NES) and national net present values at various energy efficiency levels. This spreadsheet 

includes a model that forecasts the effects 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, Dehumidifiers, 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 

opportunity 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 efficiency levels. 

After stakeholders commented 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 round of interviews 

addressed 13 topics, some of which visited again 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 characteristics; 

3. company financial parameters; 

4. breakdown of production costs; 

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 outsourcing; 

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 (chapter 5 of this TSD) and 

preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (chapter 13 of this TSD) for the NOPR. In addition, 

the Department conducted all the analyses listed in Table 1.3.1 that are required for the NOPR 

phase of a rulemaking. 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 interested parties, 

the Department analyzed four trial standard levels for microwave oven standby power.

This TSD for the Department’s SNOPR for microwave oven standby power outlines the 

analytical methods used in this rulemaking and the results of the analyses performed.

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT

This TSD comprises 17 chapters and 16 appendices.

Chapter 1 Introduction: provides an overview of the appliance standards program 

and how it applies to this rulemaking, and outlines the structure of the 

document.

Chapter 2 Analytical Framework: describes the rulemaking 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 technologies and design options 

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 manufacturer 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 process used for generating energyuse 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 and how DOE 

models 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 future product energy 

efficiency distributions in the absence and presence of amended energy 

conservation standards.

Chapter 11 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 12 Manufacturer Impact Analysis: discusses the effects of standards on the 

finances and profitability of product manufacturers.

Chapter 13 Employment Impact Analysis: discusses the effects of standards on 

national employment.

Chapter 14 Utility Impact Analysis: discusses the effects of standards on electric 

and gas utilities.

Chapter 15 Environmental Assessment: discusses the effects of standards on

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury.

Chapter 16 Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits: discusses the basis for 

the estimated monetary values used for the reduced emissions of CO2

and other pollutants that are expected to result from each of the TSLs 

considered.

Chapter 17 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 Methodology 

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 Variability

Appendix 8C Distributions Used for Discount Rates

Appendix 8D Rebuttable Payback Analysis Results

Appendix 8E Forecast of Equipment Price Trends for Microwave Ovens

Appendix 10A User Instructions for the NIA Spreadsheet

Appendix 10B NES and NPV Using Alternative Economic Growth Scenarios

Appendix 10C National 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 16A Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866

Appendix 17A Regulatory Impact Analysis Supporting Material