62034 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

[Docket Number EE–2006–STD–0127] 

RIN: 1904–AB49 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Certain 

Consumer Products (Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, Electric and Gas 

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, and 

Microwave Ovens) and for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment 

(Commercial Clothes Washers) 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment, and requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether amended, more 

stringent, standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

notice, DOE is proposing to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens 

and microwave ovens, as well as 

commercial clothes washers. DOE has 

tentatively determined that energy 

conservation standards for residential 

electric kitchen ranges and ovens are 

not technologically feasible or 

economically justified, and, therefore, is 

proposing a ‘‘no-standard’’ standard for 

these products. DOE had also initially 

considered amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers and dehumidifiers in this 

rulemaking; however, the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007) subsequently prescribed 

standards for these products. Therefore, 

DOE is not proposing standards for 

dishwashers and dehumidifiers in this 

notice, but will instead codify the 

statutory standards in a final rule. 

Finally, today’s notice is announcing a 

public meeting on the proposed 

standards. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than December 16, 2008. See section 

VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this 

notice for details. 

DOE will hold a public meeting on 

Thursday, November 13, 2008, from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. DOE 

must receive requests to speak at the 

public meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, 

October 30, 2008. DOE must receive a 

signed original and an electronic copy 

of statements to be given at the public 

meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, 

November 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. (Please note that 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. If you are 

a foreign national and wish to 

participate in the workshop, please 

inform DOE of this fact as soon as 

possible by contacting Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so that the 

necessary procedures can be 

completed.) 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Home 

Appliance Products, and provide the 

docket number EE–2006–STD–0127 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) 1904–AB49. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: home_appliance.

rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EE–2006–STD–0127 and/or RIN 

number 1904–AB49 in the subject line 

of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VII of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stephen Witkowski, Project Manager, 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Home Appliance Products, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7463. E-mail: 

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Francine Pinto, Mr. Eric Stas, or 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov, 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov, or 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Consumer Overview 

B. Authority 

C. Background 

1. Current Standards 

a. Dishwashers 

b. Dehumidifiers 

c. Cooking Products 

d. Commercial Clothes Washers 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, 

and Cooking Products; and Commercial 

Clothes Washers 

III. General Discussion 

A. Standby Power for Cooking Products 

B. Test Procedures 

1. Dishwashers and Dehumidifiers 

2. Cooking Products 

3. Commercial Clothes Washers 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Public 

Comments 

A. Product Classes 

1. Cooking Products 

a. Standing Pilot Ignition Systems 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62035 

1 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. 

2The term ‘‘cooking products,’’ as used in this 

notice, refers to residential electric and gas kitchen 

ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens. 

b. Commercial-Style Cooking Products and 

Induction Technology 

c. Microwave Ovens 

2. Commercial Clothes Washers 

B. Technology Assessment 

1. Cooking Products 

a. Sensors 

b. Display Technologies 

c. Power Supply and Control Board 

Options 

d. Power-Down Options 

2. Commercial Clothes Washers 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Levels 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

2. Manufacturing Costs 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Product Prices 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

2. Installation Costs 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

4. Energy and Water Prices 

a. Energy Prices 

b. Water and Wastewater Prices 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

8. Effective Date of the Amended Standards 

9. Equipment Assignment for the Base Case 

a. Cooking Products 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

10. Commercial Clothes Washer Split 

Incentives 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

E. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

2. Shipments 

a. New Construction Shipments 

b. Replacements 

c. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and 

Household Income Impacts 

d. Fuel Switching 

3. Other Inputs 

a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies 

b. Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies 

c. Annual Energy Consumption 

d. Site-to-Source Conversion 

e. Embedded Energy in Water and 

Wastewater Treatment and Delivery 

f. Total Installed Costs and Operating Costs 

g. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices 

h. Discount Rates 

F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. General Description 

a. Phase 1 (Industry Profile) 

b. Phase 2 (Industry Cash Flow Analysis) 

c. Phase 3 (Subgroup Impact Analysis) 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Analysis 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios and Key Inputs 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Conventional Cooking Products 

b. Microwave Ovens 

c. Commercial Clothes Washers 

H. Employment Impact Analysis 

I. Utility Impact Analysis 

J. Environmental Assessment 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. Cooking Products 

2. Commercial Clothes Washers 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

i. Conventional Cooking Products 

ii. Microwave Ovens 

iii. Commercial Clothes Washers 

b. Impacts on Employment 

i. Conventional Cooking Products 

ii. Microwave Ovens 

iii. Commercial Clothes Washers 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

i. Conventional Cooking Products 

ii. Microwave Ovens 

iii. Commercial Clothes Washers 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value 

c. Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

C. Proposed Standards 

1. Overview 

2. Conclusion 

a. Conventional Cooking Products 

b. Microwave Ovens 

c. Commercial Clothes Washers 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Conventional Cooking Products 

a. Reasons for the Proposed Rule 

b. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

c. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

d. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

e. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with 

Other Rules and Regulations 

f. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed 

Rule 

2. Microwave Ovens 

3. Commercial Clothes Washers 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to 

Speak 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act 1 (EPCA or the Act), as amended, 

provides that any amended energy 

conservation standard DOE prescribes, 

including ones for cooking products 2

and commercial clothes washers 

(collectively referred to in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) as ‘‘the 

two appliance products’’), shall be 

designed to ‘‘achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency * * * 

which the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a).) 

Furthermore, any new or amended 

standard must ‘‘result in significant 

conservation of energy.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a).) In 

accordance with these and other 

statutory criteria discussed in this 

notice, DOE proposes to amend the 

energy conservation standards for the 

two appliance products and raise 

efficiency levels as shown in Table I.1. 

The standards would apply to all 

products listed in Table I.1 that are 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States three years after the 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62036 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COOKING PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES

WASHERS

Product class Proposed energy conservation standards 

Conventional Cooking Products: 

Gas cooktops/conventional burners .................................................. No constant burning pilot lights. 

Electric cooktops/low or high wattage open (coil) elements ............. No standard. 

Electric cooktops/smooth elements ................................................... No standard. 

Gas ovens/standard oven ................................................................. No constant burning pilot lights. 

Gas ovens/self-clean oven ................................................................ No change to existing standard. 

Electric ovens .................................................................................... No standard. 

Microwave ovens ...................................................................................... Maximum standby power = 1.0 watt. 

Commercial clothes washers: 

Top-loading commercial clothes washers ......................................... 1.76 Modified Energy Factor/8.3 Water Factor. 

Front-loading commercial clothes washers ....................................... 2.00 Modified Energy Factor/5.5 Water Factor. 

In addition, DOE is proposing 

prescriptive standards that require 

elimination of constant-burning pilots 

for gas cooktops and gas standard ovens 

and standby power limits for microwave 

ovens. Furthermore, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that standards for 

conventional electric cooking products 

(i.e., non-microwave oven products) and 

amended standards for gas self-cleaning 

ovens are not technologically feasible 

and economically justified. Therefore, 

DOE is proposing a ‘‘no-standard’’ 

standard for conventional electric 

cooking products. In addition, since 

standards already exist for gas selfcleaning ovens (i.e., a ban on standing 

pilot lights), DOE is not proposing 

amendments to the existing standards. 

DOE notes that in the November 15, 

2007, advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANOPR; referred to as the 

‘‘November 2007 ANOPR’’), DOE 

announced it was considering amended 

standards for residential dishwashers 

and dehumidifiers. 72 FR 64432. 

However, section 311 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110–140) amended 

EPCA to establish revised energy 

conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers and dehumidifiers. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(9) and 6295(cc)) These 

EISA 2007 amendments set energy 

efficiency standards for these products; 

therefore, DOE will codify these 

statutory standards for residential 

dishwashers and dehumidifiers in a 

separate final rule. 

EISA 2007, through section 310, also 

amended EPCA to require that any final 

rule establishing or revising a standard 

for a covered product, which includes 

residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, 

ranges and ovens, and microwave 

ovens, adopted after July 1, 2010, shall 

incorporate standby mode and off mode 

energy use into a single amended or 

new standard, if feasible. If not feasible, 

the Secretary shall prescribe within the 

final rule a separate standard for 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, if justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) Although EISA 2007 

will ultimately require test procedures 

for all covered residential products to 

measure standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption, it set specific 

deadlines for amendments to the test 

procedures for certain products, 

including the following products 

relevant to this rulemaking: residential 

dishwashers, ranges and ovens, 

microwave ovens, and dehumidifiers 

(all due by March 31, 2011). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)) 

DOE’s preliminary analyses suggested 

that there could be a significant energy 

savings potential associated with 

microwave oven standby power, so DOE 

decided to accelerate its test procedure 

rulemaking for microwaves. DOE is 

publishing a test procedure NOPR for 

microwave ovens in the Federal 

Register. Having such a test procedure 

in place is a prerequisite for 

implementing an energy conservation 

standard that takes into account standby 

mode and off mode energy 

consumption. For the reasons stated in 

this notice, DOE does not currently have 

sufficient data at this time to allow it to 

consider a single standard incorporating 

standby mode and off mode for cooking 

products other than microwave ovens, 

so DOE is therefore proposing a separate 

standby power limit for microwave 

ovens only. Standby and off mode 

power for conventional cooking 

products, dishwashers, and 

dehumidifiers will be considered in 

separate rulemakings which will meet 

the March 31, 2011, EISA 2007 

deadline. 

DOE is not proposing energy 

conservation standards at this time for 

standby and off mode power in 

dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and 

commercial clothes washers (CCWs) for 

the following reasons: (1) Standby mode 

power in dishwashers is already 

accounted for in the energy 

conservation standards, specified in 

terms of annual energy consumption, 

established by EISA 2007 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(10)(A)); (2) DOE has insufficient 

information on dehumidifier usage 

patterns to conduct an analysis of 

standby and off mode performance; and 

(3) EISA 2007 does not include CCWs as 

a covered product for the purposes of 

prescribing standards for standby and 

off mode energy consumption. DOE 

notes that EPCA directs DOE to use the 

residential clothes washer (RCW) test 

procedure for CCWs. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(8)) In this test procedure, 

measurements for modified energy 

factor (MEF) and water factor (WF) are 

provided. This test procedure is also the 

subject of a rulemaking proposing 

amendments to incorporate standby and 

off mode power into energy 

consumption metrics, as required by 

EISA 2007 by June 30, 2009. However, 

since the proposed amendments would 

create a new metric (i.e., integrated 

modified energy factor (IMEF), 

incorporating standby mode and off 

mode power into MEF) but would retain 

MEF and not change its calculation 

under the test procedure, there will be 

no impact of these proposed 

amendments on CCWs. 

DOE estimates that the energy 

conservation standards proposed today 

would save a significant amount of 

energy-an estimated 0.75 quadrillion 

British thermal units (Btu), or quads, of 

cumulative energy over 30 years (2012– 

2042). This amount is equivalent to 15.8 

days of U.S. gasoline use. Breaking these 

figures down by product type, the 

national energy savings of the proposed 

standards for conventional gas cooking 

products is estimated to be 0.14 quads. 

For microwave ovens, it is estimated 

that the proposed standby power 

standard would result in national 

energy savings of 0.45 quads. For CCWs, 

the national energy savings resulting 

from the proposed standards is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62037 

3The energy savings by product type may not 

sum to the total quads due to rounding of 

individual values. 

4 DOE intends to use the most recently available 

version of EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook to generate 

the results for the final rule. Available online at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 

estimated to be 0.15 quads.3 In addition, 

the proposed standards for CCWs save 

over 190 billion gallons of cumulative 

water consumption over 30 years (2012– 

2042). 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards from 

2012 to 2042, in 2006 dollars (2006$), 

ranges from $2.2 billion (seven-percent 

discount rate) to $5.3 billion (threepercent discount rate). Again, breaking 

these figures down by product type, the 

NPV of the proposed standards for 

conventional gas cooking products 

ranges from $0.2 billion (seven-percent 

discount rate) to $0.6 billion (threepercent discount rate). DOE estimates 

the industry net present value (INPV) of 

gas cooktops to be approximately $287 

million and $466 million for gas ovens 

in 2006$. If DOE adopts the proposed 

standards, it estimates U.S. gas cooktop 

manufacturers will lose between 1.74 

percent and 4.12 percent of the INPV, 

which is approximately $5 to $12 

million. For gas ovens, DOE estimates 

U.S. manufacturers will lose between 

1.57 percent and 2.10 percent of the 

INPV, which is approximately $7 to $10 

million. 

For microwave ovens, the NPV of the 

proposed standards ranges from $1.6 

billion (seven-percent discount rate) to 

$3.5 billion (three-percent discount 

rate). DOE estimates the INPV to be 

approximately $1.45 billion in 2006$. If 

DOE adopts the proposed standards, it 

estimates U.S. manufacturers will lose 

between 2.52 percent and 4.92 percent 

of the INPV, which is approximately 

$37 to $71 million. 

For CCWs, the NPV of the proposed 

standards ranges from $0.5 billion 

(seven-percent discount rate) to $1.2 

billion (three-percent discount rate). 

This is the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings minus the 

estimated increased equipment costs, 

discounted to 2007 in 2006 dollars 

(2006$). DOE estimates the INPV to be 

approximately $56 million in 2006$. If 

DOE adopts the proposed standards, it 

expects manufacturers will lose between 

26.50 percent and 31.09 percent of the 

INPV, which is approximately $15 

million to $17 million. However, the 

NPV for consumers (at the sevenpercent discount rate) would exceed 

industry losses due to energy efficiency 

standards by at least 29.4 times. 

DOE believes the impacts of standards 

on consumers would be positive for 

each type of covered product addressed 

in this rulemaking, even though that 

standard may increase some initial 

costs. For example, DOE estimates that 

the proposed standards for conventional 

gas cooking products would increase the 

consumer retail price by $18 for gas 

cooktops and $22 for gas standard 

ovens. In addition, DOE believes that 

over 50 percent of consumers 

purchasing gas cooking products with 

constant burning or standing pilot lights 

would need to install an electrical outlet 

at a cost of $235 to accommodate a 

product that requires electricity to 

operate. But even with these additional 

costs, DOE estimates that the savings in 

reduced energy costs outweigh these 

costs; in other words, the average lifecycle cost (LCC) savings are positive. 

For microwave ovens, DOE estimates 

that limiting standby power 

consumption to 1.0 watt (W) would 

decrease energy costs but increase the 

consumer retail price by only $2, 

resulting in positive economic impacts 

to consumers. Although DOE estimates 

that the proposed MEF and WF 

standards for CCWs would increase the 

retail price by over $229 per unit for 

top-loading washers and $21 for frontloading washers, the operating cost 

savings outweigh these price increases, 

resulting in positive economic impacts 

to CCW consumers. 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

energy savings resulting from the 

proposed standards would have benefits 

to utilities and to the environment. The 

energy saved is in the form of electricity 

and natural gas, and DOE expects the 

energy savings from the proposed 

standards to eliminate the need for 

approximately 404 megawatts (MW) of 

generating capacity by 2042. Breaking 

this figure down by product type: the 

proposed standards for conventional gas 

cooking products eliminate the need for 

approximately 56 MW of generating 

capacity; the proposed standards for 

microwave ovens eliminate the need for 

320 MW of generating capacity, and the 

proposed standards for CCWs eliminate 

the need for 28 MW of generating 

capacity. These results reflect DOE’s use 

of energy price projections from the U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 

(EIA)’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008 

(AEO 2008).4

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have environmental benefits, 

which would be estimated to result in 

cumulative (undiscounted) greenhouse 

gas emission reductions of 76 million 

tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 

2012 to 2042. Specifically, the proposed 

standards for conventional gas cooking 

products would reduce CO2 emissions 

by 14.6 Mt; the proposed standards for 

microwave ovens would reduce CO2

emissions by 50.5 Mt; and the proposed 

standards for CCWs reduce CO2

emissions by 11.5 Mt. 

The standards for gas cooking 

products and CCWs would also result in 

10.1 kilotons (kt) of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) emissions reductions, at the sites 

where appliances are used, from 2012 to 

2042. In addition, gas cooking product 

and CCW standards would result in 

power plant NOX emissions reductions 

of 0.5 kt to 11.9 kt from 2012 to 2042. 

Moreover, the standards for microwave 

ovens would result in power plant 

emission reductions of 2.7 kt to 66.0 kt 

of NOX from 2012 to 2042, attributable 

to these appliances. 

The standards for gas cooking 

products, microwave ovens, and CCWs 

would also possibly result in power 

plant mercury (Hg) emissions 

reductions. For cooking products, Hg 

emissions could be reduced by up to 0.2 

tons (t) from 2012 to 2042. For CCWs, 

up to 0.2 t of Hg emissions reductions 

could be realized over 2012 to 2042. For 

microwave ovens, Hg emissions could 

be reduced by up to 1.1 t from 2012 to 

2042. 

In sum, the proposed standards 

represent the maximum improvement in 

energy and water efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE found that 

the benefits to the Nation of the 

proposed standards (energy and water 

savings, consumer average LCC savings, 

national NPV increase, and emission 

reductions) outweigh the costs (loss of 

INPV, and LCC increases for some 

consumers). DOE has concluded that the 

proposed standards are economically 

justified and technologically feasible, 

particularly since units achieving these 

standard levels already are 

commercially available. DOE notes that 

it considered higher efficiency levels as 

trial standard levels (TSLs), and is still 

considering them in this rulemaking; 

however, DOE tentatively believes that 

the burdens of the higher efficiency 

levels (loss of INPV and LCC increases 

for some consumers) outweigh the 

benefits (energy savings, LCC savings for 

some consumers, national NPV increase, 

and emission reductions). After 

reviewing public comments on this 

NOPR, DOE may ultimately decide to 

adopt one of its other TSLs or another 

value in between. 

Finally, although DOE has proposed a 

‘‘no-standard’’ standard for several of 

the conventional cooking product 

classes, Federal energy conservation 

requirements, including a ‘‘noVerDate Aug<31>2005 19:46 Oct 16, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP3.SGM 17OCP3

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62038 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

5At this time, DOE anticipates that publishing a 

final rule in March 2009, pursuant to the 

requirements of a Federal court consent decree, 

which would make the amended standards effective 

in March 2012. 

6Under the statute, a standard size dishwasher 

shall not exceed 355 kWh/year and 6.5 gallons per 

cycle, and a compact size dishwasher shall not 

exceed 260 kWh/year and 4.5 gallons per cycle. 

7Under the statute, such dehumidifiers shall have 

an Energy Factor (EF) that meets or exceeds the 

following values: (See above table.) 

8Under the statute, a CCW must have a modified 

energy factor (MEF) of at least 1.26 and a water 

factor (WF) of not more than 9.5. 

9The EPCA provisions discussed in the 

remainder of this subsection directly apply to 

covered products, and also apply to certain covered 

equipment, such as commercial clothes washers, by 

virtue of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). Note that the term 

‘‘product’’ is used generally to refer to consumer 

appliances, while ‘‘equipment’’ is used generally to 

refer to commercial units. 

standard’’ standard, generally supersede 

State laws or regulations concerning 

energy conservation testing, labeling, 

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

DOE can, however, grant waivers of 

such preemption for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions of 

section 327(d) of EPCA, as amended. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

II. Introduction 

A. Consumer Overview 

DOE is proposing energy conservation 

standard levels for residential cooking 

products and CCWs as shown in Table 

I.1. The proposed standards would 

apply to products manufactured or 

imported three years after the date the 

final rule is published in the Federal 

Register.5

Residential and commercial 

consumers will see benefits from the 

proposed standards. Although DOE 

expects the purchase price of the high 

efficiency cooking products and CCWs 

to be higher (ranging from 1 to 26 

percent for cooking products and 2 to 31 

percent for CCWs) than the average 

price of this equipment today, the 

energy efficiency gains will result in 

lower energy costs, saving consumers $1 

to $63 per year on their energy bills, 

again depending on the product. When 

these savings are summed over the 

lifetime of the product, consumers are 

expected to save an average of $6 to 

$252, depending on the product. DOE 

estimates that the payback period for the 

more-efficient, higher-priced product 

will range from 0.3 to 9 years, 

depending on the product. In contrast, 

residential consumers will see no 

impact in terms of the standard for 

electric kitchen ranges and ovens, 

because it was determined that 

amended standards were not justified 

under the existing statutory criteria. 

B. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ The program covers 

consumer products (all of which are 

referred to hereafter as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including residential 

dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and 

cooking products. (42 U.S.C. 6292, 

6295) Part A–1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317) establishes a similar 

program for ‘‘Certain Industrial 

Equipment,’’ which deals with a variety 

of commercial and industrial equipment 

(referred to hereafter as ‘‘covered 

equipment’’) including CCWs. (42 

U.S.C. 6312; 6313(e)) EPCA sets both 

energy and water efficiency standards 

for CCWs, and authorizes DOE to amend 

both. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) 

Specifically, for dishwashers, the 

National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to 

establish prescriptive standards, 

requiring that dishwashers be equipped 

with an option to dry without heat, and 

further requiring that DOE conduct two 

cycles of rulemakings to determine if 

more stringent standards are justified. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and (4)) Section 

311(a)(2) of EISA 2007 subsequently 

established maximum energy and water 

use levels for residential dishwashers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010.6 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) 

Section 135(c)(4) of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005; Pub. L. 109– 

58) added dehumidifiers as products 

covered under EPCA and established 

standards for them that became effective 

on October 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) 

These amendments to EPCA also require 

that DOE issue a final rule by October 

1, 2009, to determine whether these 

standards should be amended. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(cc)) If amended standards 

are justified, they must become effective 

by October 1, 2012. (Id.) In the event 

that DOE fails to publish such a final 

rule, EPACT 2005 specifies a new set of 

amended standards with an effective 

date of October 1, 2012. (Id.) EISA 2007 

subsequently amended section 325(cc) 

of EPCA by replacing the requirement 

for a rulemaking to amend the 

dehumidifier standards with 

prescriptive minimum efficiency levels 

for dehumidifiers manufactured on or 

after October 1, 2012.7 (EISA 2007, 

section 311(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) 

Product capacity (pints/day) 

Minimum 

EF (liters/ 

kWh) 

Up to 35.00 ............................... 1.35 

35.01–45.00 .............................. 1.50 

45.01–54.00 .............................. 1.60 

54.01–75.00 .............................. 1.70 

75.00 or more ........................... 2.5 

As with dishwashers, NAECA 

amended EPCA to establish prescriptive 

standards for cooking products, 

requiring gas ranges and ovens with an 

electrical supply cord that are 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

1990 not to be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot, and requiring DOE to 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings for 

ranges and ovens to determine if the 

standards established should be 

amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (h)(1)–(2)) 

Similar to dehumidifiers, EPACT 

2005 included amendments to EPCA 

that added CCWs as covered equipment, 

and it also established standards for 

such equipment that is manufactured on 

or after January 1, 2007.8 (EPACT 2005, 

section 136(a) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6311(1) 

and 6313(e)) EPACT 2005 also requires 

that DOE issue a final rule by January 

1, 2010, to determine whether these 

standards should be amended. (EPACT 

2005, section 136(e); 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) 

It is pursuant to the authority set forth 

above that DOE is conducting the 

present rulemaking for cooking products 

and CCWs and will codify the statutory 

standards for dishwashers and 

dehumidifiers. The following discusses 

some of the key provisions of EPCA 

relevant to this standards-setting 

rulemaking. 

Under EPCA, the overall program 

consists of the following core elements: 

(1) Testing; (2) labeling; and (3) Federal 

energy conservation standards. The 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is 

responsible for labeling products 

covered by part A, and DOE implements 

the remainder of the program. Under 42 

U.S.C. 6293 and 6314, EPCA authorizes 

DOE, subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, to develop test procedures 

to measure the energy efficiency, energy 

use, or estimated annual operating cost 

of covered products and equipment. The 

test procedures for the appliance 

products subject to today’s notice 

appear at Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B— 

dishwashers in appendix C, 

dehumidifiers in appendix X, cooking 

products in appendix I, and CCWs in 

appendix J1 (the latter pursuant to 10 

CFR 431.154.) 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

new or amended standards for covered 

products and equipment.9 As indicated 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62039 

above, any new or amended standard for 

either of the two appliance products 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, DOE 

may not prescribe a standard for some 

types of products if: (1) No test 

procedure has been established for that 

product; or (2) DOE determines by rule 

that the standard is not technologically 

feasible or economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) The statute 

also provides that, in deciding whether 

a standard is economically justified, 

DOE must, after receiving comments on 

the proposed standard, determine 

whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens by considering, to 

the greatest extent practicable, the 

following seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products or equipment 

subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products or equipment in 

the type (or class) compared to any 

increase in the price, initial charges, or 

maintenance expenses for the covered 

products that are likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or, as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products or 

equipment likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

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

Furthermore, EPCA contains what is 

commonly known as an ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) This provision prohibits the 

Secretary from prescribing any amended 

standard that either increases the 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product or 

equipment. Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or a new standard 

if the Secretary finds that interested 

persons have established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the 

standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any product type (or class) with 

performance characteristics, features, 

sizes, capacities, and volume that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States at the time 

of the Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)), establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that a standard 

is economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that ‘‘the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy (and as 

applicable, water) savings during the 

first year that the consumer will receive 

as a result of the standard,’’ as 

calculated under the test procedure in 

place for that standard. This approach 

provides an alternative path in 

establishing economic justification 

under the EPCA factors. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE considered this 

test, but believes that the criterion it 

applies (i.e., a limited payback period) 

is not sufficient for determining 

economic justification. Instead, DOE has 

considered a full range of impacts, 

including those to the consumer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment. 

In promulgating a standard for a type 

or class of covered product that has two 

or more subcategories, DOE must 

specify a different standard level than 

that which applies generally to such 

type or class of products ‘‘for any group 

of covered products which have the 

same function or intended use, if * * * 

products within such group—(A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard’’ than applies 

or will apply to the other products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies such a different standard for a 

group of products, DOE must consider 

‘‘such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of such a feature’’ and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

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

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

can, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

EPCA found in 42 U.S.C. 6297(d). 

Specifically, States that regulate an 

energy conservation standard for a type 

of covered product for which there is a 

Federal energy conservation standard 

may petition the Secretary for a DOE 

rule that allows the State regulation to 

become effective with respect to such 

covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)(1)(A)) DOE must prescribe a 

rule granting the petition if the 

Secretary finds that the State has 

established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that its regulation is needed to 

meet ‘‘unusual and compelling State or 

local energy * * * interests.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)(1)(B)) 

C. Background 

1. Current Standards 

a. Dishwashers 

DOE established the current energy 

conservation standards for dishwashers 

manufactured on or after May 14, 1994 

in a final rule on May 14, 1991 (56 FR 

22250), which consist of a requirement 

that the energy factor (EF) of a standard 

size dishwasher must not be less than 

0.46 cycles per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and 

that the EF of a compact size 

dishwasher must not be less than 0.62 

cycles per kWh. (10 CFR 430.32(f)) 

b. Dehumidifiers 

EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, 

prescribes the current energy 

conservation standard for 

dehumidifiers, as shown in Table II.1. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(1); 10 CFR 

430.32(v)) 

TABLE II.1—EPACT 2005 STANDARDS

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEHUMIDIFIERS

Dehumidifier capacity 

Standards effective October 1, 2007 

EF (liters/kWh) 

25.00 pints/day or less ......... 1.00 

25.01–35.00 pints/day .......... 1.20 

35.01–54.00 pints/day .......... 1.30 

54.01–74.99 pints/day .......... 1.50 

75.00 pints/day or more ....... 2.25 

c. Cooking Products 

EPCA prescribes the current energy 

conservation standard for cooking 

products, which consists of a 

requirement that gas ranges and ovens 

with an electrical supply cord that are 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

1990, not be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1); 10 

CFR 430.32(j)) 

d. Commercial Clothes Washers 

EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, 

also prescribes standards for CCWs 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62040 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

10 DOE intends to codify all prescriptive energy 

conservation standards established under EISA 

2007 for various products and equipment into its 

regulations in a separate Federal Register notice. 

11This document is available on the DOE Web 

site at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

dehumidifiers.html. 

12These spreadsheets are available on the DOE 

Web site at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential_products.html. 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2007. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) These 

standards require that CCWs have an 

MEF of at least 1.26 and a WF of not 

more than 9.5. (Id.; 10 CFR 431.156) 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Residential Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products; 

and Commercial Clothes Washers 

For dishwashers, NAECA amended 

EPCA to establish prescriptive 

standards, requiring that dishwashers be 

equipped with an option to dry without 

heat, and further requiring that DOE 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine if more stringent standards 

are justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and 

(4)) On May 14, 1991, DOE published a 

final rule establishing the first set of 

performance standards for dishwashers 

(56 FR 22250); these new standards 

discussed became effective on May 14, 

1994 (10 CFR 430.32(f)). DOE initiated 

a second standards rulemaking for 

dishwashers by publishing an ANOPR 

on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 56423). 

However, as a result of the prioritysetting process outlined in its 

Procedures, Interpretations and Policies 

for Consideration of New or Revised 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Consumer Products (the ‘‘Process Rule’’) 

(61 FR 36974 (July 15, 1996); 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A), DOE 

suspended the standards rulemaking for 

dishwashers. 

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 

added dehumidifiers as products 

covered under EPCA and established 

standards for them that became effective 

on October 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) 

DOE has incorporated these standards 

into its regulations (70 FR 60407, 60414 

(Oct. 18, 2005); 10 CFR 430.32(v)). 

The November 2007 ANOPR 

addressed standards for residential 

dishwashers and dehumidifiers, in 

addition to cooking products and CCWs. 

On December 19, 2007, however, 

Congress enacted EISA 2007, which, 

among other things, established 

minimum efficiency levels for 

dehumidifiers manufactured on or after 

October 1, 2012. (EISA 2007, section 

311(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) In 

addition, section 311(a)(2) of EISA 2007 

established maximum energy and water 

use levels for residential dishwashers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) Because 

EISA 2007 established standards for 

residential dishwashers and 

dehumidifiers, DOE will codify the 

statutory standards for these products in 

a separate final rule.10 DOE will not 

entertain comment on these standard 

levels set under EISA 2007, because the 

Department does not have discretion to 

modify such statutory levels. As a 

result, DOE will limit its analysis in the 

balance of this NOPR to cooking 

products and commercial clothes 

washers. 

The existing prescriptive standard for 

cooking products, described above, was 

added to EPCA by amendments 

contained in the NAECA. As set forth in 

greater detail in the November 2007 

ANOPR, these amendments required 

DOE to conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

revise the standard. DOE undertook the 

first cycle of these rulemakings and 

issued a final rule on September 8, 1998 

(63 FR 48038), which found that no 

standards were justified for electric 

cooking products. Partially due to the 

difficulty of conclusively demonstrating 

that elimination of standing pilots was 

economically justified, DOE did not 

adopt a standard for gas cooking 

products. 72 FR 64432, 64438 (Nov. 15, 

2007). DOE is currently in the second 

cycle of rulemakings required by the 

NAECA amendments to EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)) 

EPACT 2005 included amendments to 

EPCA that added CCWs as covered 

equipment and established the current 

standards for such equipment. (EPACT 

2005, section 136(a) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(G) and 6313(e)) DOE has 

incorporated these standards into its 

regulations (70 FR 60407, 60416 (Oct. 

18, 2005); 10 CFR 431.156). The EPACT 

2005 amendments also require that DOE 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine whether these standards 

should be amended. (EPACT 2005, 

section 136(e); 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)) The 

first of these rules must be published by 

January 1, 2010, and any amended 

standard in the rule would apply to 

products manufactured three years after 

the rule is published. Id. 

To initiate the current rulemaking to 

consider energy conservation standards, 

on March 15, 2006, DOE published on 

its Web site a document titled, 

Rulemaking Framework for Commercial 

Clothes Washers and Residential 

Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and 

Cooking Products (Framework 

Document).11 71 FR 15059 (March 27, 

2006). The Framework Document 

described the procedural and analytical 

approaches that DOE anticipated using 

to evaluate energy conservation 

standards for these products, and 

identified various issues to be resolved 

in conducting the rulemaking. DOE held 

a public meeting on April 27, 2006, to 

present the Framework Document, to 

describe the analyses it planned to 

conduct during the rulemaking, to 

receive comments from stakeholders, 

and to inform and facilitate 

stakeholders’ involvement in the 

rulemaking. DOE received 11 written 

comments in response to the Framework 

Document after the public meeting. 

On December 4, 2006, DOE posted 

two spreadsheet tools for this 

rulemaking on its Web site.12 The first 

tool calculates LCC and payback periods 

(PBPs) and included spreadsheets for: 

(1) Dishwashers; (2) dehumidifiers; (3) 

cooktops; (4) ovens; (5) microwave 

ovens; and (6) CCWs. The second tool— 

the national impact analysis (NIA) 

spreadsheet—calculates the impacts on 

shipments and the national energy 

savings (NES) and NPV at various 

candidate standard levels. The NIA 

spreadsheets include one each for: (1) 

Dishwashers; (2) dehumidifiers; (3) 

cooktops and ovens; (4) microwave 

ovens; and (5) CCWs. 

DOE published the ANOPR for this 

rulemaking on November 15, 2007, and 

held a public meeting on December 13, 

2007, to present and seek comment on 

the November 2007 ANOPR analytical 

methodology and results. 72 FR 64432. 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

described and sought further comment 

on the analytical framework, models, 

and tools (e.g., LCC and NIA 

spreadsheets) it was using to analyze the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards for these products. In 

conjunction with the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE also posted on its Web 

site the complete November 2007 

ANOPR technical support document 

(TSD). The TSD included the results of 

a number of DOE’s preliminary 

analyses, including: (1) The market and 

technology assessment; (2) screening 

analysis; (3) engineering analysis; (4) 

energy and water use determination; (5) 

markups analysis to determine 

equipment price; (6) LCC and PBP 

analyses; (7) shipments analysis; (8) 

NES and national impact analyses; and 

(9) manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). 

In the November 2007 ANOPR and at 

the public meeting, DOE invited 

comment in particular on the following 

issues concerning cooking products and 

CCWs: (1) Microwave oven standby 

power; (2) product classes; (3) CCW 

horizontal-axis designs; (4) microwave 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62041 

13A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at p. 20’’ identifies an oral 

comment that DOE received during the December 

13, 2007, ANOPR public meeting and which was 

recorded in the public meeting transcript in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006– 

STD–0127), maintained in the Resource Room of 

the Building Technologies Program. This particular 

notation refers to a comment (1) made by the 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) during the public meeting, (2) recorded in 

document number 23.7, which is the public 

meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this 

rulemaking, and (3) which appears on page 20 of 

document number 23.7. A notation in the form 

‘‘EEI, No. 25 at pp. 2–3’’ identifies a written 

comment (1) made by the Edison Electric Institute 

(EEI), (2) recorded in document number 25 that is 

filed in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) which 

appears on pages 2–3 of document number 25. 

14 IEC standards are available at: http:// 

www.iec.ch. 

15 IEC 62087 does not cover any products for this 

rulemaking, and, therefore, was not considered. 

16As discussed in the November 2007 ANOPR, 

addressing standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption is not required for this standards 

rulemaking under EPCA, but DOE seeks to publish 

a final rule for the test procedure amendments prior 

to March 31, 2009, in order to allow the microwave 

oven energy conservation standards to account for 

standby mode and off mode power consumption. 

oven design options; (5) technologies 

unable to be analyzed and exempted 

product classes, including potential 

limitations of existing test procedures; 

(6) CCW per-cycle energy consumption; 

(7) CCW consumer prices; (8) repair and 

maintenance costs; (9) efficiency 

distributions in the base case; (10) CCW 

shipments forecasts; (11) base-case and 

standards-case forecasted efficiencies; 

and (12) TSLs. 72 FR 64432, 64512–14 

(Nov. 15, 2007). 

The November 2007 ANOPR also 

included background information, in 

addition to that set forth above, on the 

history and conduct of this rulemaking 

and on DOE’s use in this rulemaking of 

its Process Rule. 72 FR 64432, 64438– 

39 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE held a public 

meeting in Washington, DC, on 

December 13, 2007, to present the 

methodologies and results for the 

November 2007 ANOPR analyses, along 

with a summary of supplemental 

analysis DOE conducted for microwave 

ovens (referred to as the ‘‘December 

2007 public meeting’’). At the December 

2007 public meeting, stakeholders 

commented that they had come to an 

agreement regarding what they believed 

to be appropriate levels for energy 

conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers and dishwashers and 

would offer draft legislation that would 

reflect such agreement. (Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM), Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23.7 at pp. 20 and 24; 13 Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23.7 at p. 

24) These stakeholders’ suggested 

energy conservation standard levels 

were subsequently incorporated into the 

EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, as 

discussed previously in this section. 

DOE expects to issue a final rule in 

this rulemaking in March 2009. Based 

on this schedule, the effective date of 

any new energy efficiency standards for 

these products would be March 2012, 

three years after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Standby Power for Cooking Products 

Section 310 of the EISA 2007 amends 

section 325 of the EPCA to require DOE 

to regulate standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption for all covered 

products, including residential ranges 

and ovens and microwave ovens, as part 

of energy conservation standards for 

which a final rule is adopted after July 

10, 2010. In addition, EISA 2007 

amended section 325 of EPCA to 

specifically require that test procedures 

for ranges and ovens and microwave 

ovens be amended by March 31, 2011 to 

include measurement of standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption, 

taking into consideration the most 

current versions of International 

Electrotechnical Commission’s (IEC) 

Standard 62301 Household electrical 

appliances—Measurement of standby 

power 14 (IEC 62301) and IEC Standard 

62087 Methods of measurement for the 

power consumption of audio, video and 

related equipment (IEC 62087).15 (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)) Because the final rule 

for this rulemaking is scheduled to be 

published in the Federal Register by 

March 31, 2009, an energy conservation 

standard for cooking products set forth 

by this rulemaking is not required to 

incorporate standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption. 

Although DOE is also not required to 

incorporate standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption for any cooking 

products at this time, in the November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE stated that it is 

considering including standby power in 

the energy conservation standards and 

intends to initiate amendment of its test 

procedure to measure microwave oven 

standby power because: (1) Energy 

consumption in standby mode 

represents a significant proportion of 

microwave oven annual energy 

consumption, and (2) the range of 

standby power among microwave ovens 

currently on the market suggests that the 

likely impact of a standard would be 

significant in terms of energy 

consumption. 72 FR 64432, 64440–42 

(Nov. 15, 2007). Such a test procedure 

change is a prerequisite to incorporate a 

standby power requirement as part of 

the energy conservation standard for 

microwave ovens.16 DOE invited 

comments on this issue, and 

commenters generally supported the 

early initiation of test procedure 

amendments to measure standby power 

consumption in microwave ovens. The 

comments on this issue are discussed in 

section III.B.2 of this notice. 

DOE also invited comment on the 

incorporation of standby power in an 

energy conservation standard for 

residential cooking products. Several 

organizations—ASAP, Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC), Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and the 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE)—filed a 

single joint comment (hereafter Joint 

Comment) that supported a standby 

power standard for residential ovens, 

including microwave ovens, or, in the 

alternative, a prescriptive requirement if 

test methods cannot be amended in time 

to support this rulemaking. For the 

reasons just discussed, DOE is 

considering incorporating standby 

power into the energy conservation 

standard for microwave ovens. For 

conventional cooking products, as will 

be discussed in more detail in section 

III.B.2, DOE does not have data or 

information to analyze standby mode 

and off mode power consumption. DOE 

will instead consider test procedure 

amendments for conventional cooking 

products in a later rulemaking that 

meets the March 31, 2011, deadline set 

by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)) 

For microwave ovens, the Joint 

Comment stated that, while per-unit 

standby power savings amount to only 

several W per unit, they represent not 

only a large proportion of total 

microwave oven annual energy use but 

a large national impact as well when 

considering the stock and sales rate of 

microwave ovens. (Joint Comment, No. 

29 at p. 7) DOE recognizes the Joint 

Comment’s support for a standby power 

standard, but notes that even if the 

proposed standard were to be a 

prescriptive standby power level, a test 

procedure amendment prior to the final 

rule of this standards rulemaking would 

be required to incorporate such a 

measurement. 

In assessing the opportunity to reduce 

standby power, the Joint Comment 

compared maximum microwave oven 

standby power in measurements 

reported by DOE, AHAM, and the 

Australian National Appliance and 

Equipment Energy Efficiency Committee 

(ANAEEEC). These measurements 

ranged from almost 6 W to 8.4 W, with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62042 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

17For example, two units among the microwave 

ovens tested by AHAM, each with 1000 W of input 

power, will be designated Unit A and Unit B for the 

purposes of this illustration. The EF of Unit A was 

measured by AHAM according to the current DOE 

test procedure as 55.7 percent, while the EF of Unit 

B was measured as 57.3 percent. The standby power 

of Unit A, however, was measured as 1.7 W, 

compared to the 4.4 W of standby power for Unit 

B. If a combined EF (‘‘CEF’’) were to be calculated 

by adding the annual standby energy use to the 

annual cooking energy consumption, this CEF for 

Unit A would be 50.5 percent, while the CEF for 

Unit B would be 45.0 percent, thereby reversing the 

rankings of the two microwave ovens according to 

their energy descriptor. The unit that was formerly 

considered the higher efficiency unit would thus be 

rated as lower in efficiency. 

18A microwave oven is considered to be in ‘‘off 

mode’’ if it is plugged in to a main power source, 

is not being used for an active function such as 

cooking or defrosting, and is consuming power for 

features other than a display, cooking sensor, 

controls (including a remote control), or sensors 

required to reactivate it from a low power state. For 

example, a microwave oven with mechanical 

controls and no display or cooking sensor that 

consumed power for components such as a power 

supply when the unit was not activated would be 

considered to be in off mode. Note that DOE 

believes there are no longer any such microwave 

ovens with mechanical controls on the market, and, 

in fact, is not aware of any microwave ovens 

currently available that can operate in off mode. 

a presumed standby demand of 3 W at 

most for minimal functionality, as 

inferred from microwaves listed in the 

Federal Energy Management Program 

(FEMP) procurement database which 

have both a clock display and a cooking 

sensor. The Joint Comment further 

stated that since there are no State or 

Federal standby performance or active 

mode performance standards, 

manufacturers have had little incentive 

to optimize the standby demand of 

microwave ovens. As an example of a 

product for which standby power was 

raised to the highest levels of design 

consideration by manufacturers, the 

Joint Comment stated that significant 

standby power reductions were 

achieved at minimal or no cost for 

external power supplies in response to 

market demands (e.g., portable 

electronics) and policy demands (e.g., 

standards or ENERGY STAR levels). 

(Joint Comment, No. 29 at pp. 5–8) 

AHAM, on the other hand, commented 

that DOE should not promulgate a 

standby power standard for cooking 

products in general, and in the case of 

microwave ovens, the contribution of 

standby power to total microwave oven 

energy use is relatively small and is 

associated with significant functionality 

for the consumer. (AHAM, No. 32 at p. 

2) 

As part of its engineering analysis, 

DOE sampled 32 microwave ovens, and 

AHAM provided test data for an 

additional 21 units submitted by 

manufacturers. Each microwave oven 

was tested according to the existing 

DOE test procedure, which measures the 

amount of energy required to raise the 

temperature of one kilogram of water by 

10 degrees Celsius under controlled 

conditions. The ratio of usable output 

power over input power describes the 

EF, which is also a measure of the 

cooking efficiency. The data from the 

DOE and AHAM cooking tests show a 

cooking efficiency range from 55 

percent to 62 percent. Reverse 

engineering conducted by DOE 

attempted to identify design options 

associated with this variation in cooking 

efficiency. Although design options 

among various microwave ovens were 

found to be highly standardized, DOE 

was unable to correlate specific design 

options or other features such as cavity 

size or output power with cooking 

efficiency. (See chapter 5 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice.) 

DOE also observed significant 

variability in the cooking efficiency 

measurements obtained using the DOE 

microwave oven test procedure for the 

53 units tested by DOE and AHAM. The 

data show test-to-test variability of 

several EF percentage points for a given 

microwave oven (i.e., where a given 

combination of design options could be 

assigned to a number of TSLs, 

depending upon the test results). DOE 

was also unable to ascertain why 

similarly designed, equipped, and 

constructed microwave ovens showed 

varying EFs and, hence, annual energy 

consumption. DOE further notes that 

manufacturers stated during MIA 

interviews that the water used in the 

test procedure is not representative of 

an actual food load. One manufacturer 

stated, for example, that this could 

result in different microwave ovens 

being rated at the same energy efficiency 

even though true cooking performance 

is different. 

In a review of the DOE microwave 

oven test procedure (which does not 

currently incorporate a measure of 

standby mode and off mode energy use), 

DOE explored whether it would be 

technically feasible to combine the 

existing measure of energy efficiency 

during the cooking cycle (per-use) with 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

(over time) to form a single metric, as 

required by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) Specifically, the test 

procedure’s existing metric for 

microwave oven overall energy 

efficiency measures the efficiency of 

heating a sample of water over a period 

of seconds. In contrast, standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption is a 

measure of the amount of energy used 

over a period of multiple hours while 

not performing the function of heating 

a load. DOE found that an overall energy 

efficiency that combines the two values 

is representative of neither the energy 

efficiency of the microwave oven for a 

very short period of use (as is the case 

with the EF) nor the efficiency of the 

microwave oven over an extended 

period of time. 

DOE notes that certain DOE test 

procedures for other products combine 

a measure of cycle efficiency and 

standby energy use to derive an overall 

‘‘energy efficiency measure,’’ (e.g., gas 

kitchen ranges and ovens incorporate 

pilot gas consumption in EF, electric 

ovens include clock power in EF, and 

gas dryers include pilot gas 

consumption). However, DOE believes 

that in those cases where the difference 

in energy use between the primary 

function of those products and the 

standby power is so large that the 

standby power has little impact on the 

overall measure of energy efficiency or 

the combined efficiency is based on 

energy use of the primary energy 

function and standby power over the 

same period, (e.g., annual or seasonal), 

the combined measure of energy 

efficiency is a meaningful measure. In 

the case of microwave ovens, the energy 

consumption associated with standby 

mode is a significant fraction of the 

overall energy use. DOE notes, for 

example, that, depending on the 

cooking efficiency and standby power, 

the rank ordering of two microwave 

ovens based on EF alone could reverse 

if standby power were factored in, 

depending on the values of cooking 

energy use and standby power.17

Therefore, given the similar magnitudes 

of microwave oven annual energy 

consumption associated with these two 

disparate and largely incompatible 

metrics that are measured over very 

different time periods, DOE questioned 

whether it would be technically feasible 

to incorporate EF and standby power 

into a combined energy efficiency 

metric that produces a meaningful 

result. 

To explore standby mode and off 

mode power for the purpose of potential 

microwave oven energy conservation 

standards, DOE tested 32 sample units 

using the current IEC Standard 62301 

standby test procedure and recorded a 

standby power range of about 1.2 W to 

5.8 W (with less than 0.5 percent testto-test deviation). DOE observed no off 

mode power consumption for the 

microwave ovens in its test sample, and 

DOE’s research suggests that no other 

microwave ovens available in the 

United States consume energy in an off 

mode.18 Thus, DOE focused its 

investigations on standby mode. Data 

suggested correlations between specific 

features and standby power, thereby 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62043 

19 DOE notes that if a microwave oven standard 

is established based on standby power alone, 

measurable energy savings would certainly be 

achieved. If, however, standby power were to be 

combined with cooking efficiency, it is conceivable 

that many microwave ovens could already comply 

with the standard without reducing standby power, 

since the annual energy consumption due to 

standby power is on the same order as that 

associated with the variability in EF. 

providing the basis for a cost-efficiency 

curve. However, for the reasons stated 

above about combining a per-cycle 

efficiency with standby power over a 

long period of time, as well as due to the 

observed test variability in the cooking 

efficiency results, DOE is concerned that 

an overall measure of cooking efficiency 

that combines cooking and standby 

energy cannot produce test results that 

measure energy efficiency or energy use 

of microwave ovens in a reasonable and 

repeatable manner. An ‘‘average’’ 

microwave runs 8,689 hours in standby 

mode per year. Based on the standby 

power range measured by DOE and 

AHAM, standby power consumption 

represents a relatively large component 

of total annual energy consumption. At 

the efficiency baseline from the analysis 

conducted for the previous cooking 

products rulemaking, as discussed in 

the 1996 Technical Support Document 

for Residential Cooking Products (1996 

TSD), (which was also observed in the 

test sample), the observed range of 

annual energy consumption due to 

cooking (14.2 kWh) is equivalent to 

approximately 2 W of standby power. 

(See chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice.) 

DOE also explored whether the 

existing test procedure’s measure of 

annual energy consumption could be 

modified to be a combined energy 

efficiency descriptor for microwave 

ovens, despite the fact that EF is 

currently listed as the energy efficiency 

descriptor. For the reasons articulated 

here, DOE has tentatively concluded 

that neither approach meets the 

statutory standard for a combined 

metric. 

In light of the above, DOE believes 

that, although it may be mathematically 

possible to combine energy 

consumption into a single metric 

encompassing active (cooking), standby, 

and off modes, it is not technically 

feasible to do so at this time, because of 

the high variability in the current 

cooking efficiency measurement from 

which the active mode EF and annual 

energy consumption are derived (as 

discussed previously) and because of 

the significant contribution of standby 

power to overall microwave oven energy 

use. Given DOE’s recent research, there 

is concern that cooking efficiency 

results for microwave ovens would not 

be meaningful, so incorporation of such 

results in a combined metric similarly 

would not be expected to be 

meaningful. Inherent in a determination 

of technical feasibility under EISA 2007 

for a combined metric for active, 

standby, and off mode energy 

consumption is an expectation that the 

results would be meaningful. 

Accordingly, for the purposes of this 

notice, DOE is not proposing to 

incorporate standby and off modes with 

active mode into a combined metric, but 

is instead proposing a separate metric to 

measure standby power, as provided for 

by EISA 2007 in cases where it is 

technically infeasible to incorporate 

standby and off modes into a combined 

energy conservation metric.19 (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(B)) 

Although it may not be technically 

feasible to develop a combined metric 

for microwave ovens today, it may be 

possible to do so in the future, provided 

that each is measured on a consistent 

basis (i.e., kWh per year apportioned to 

each mode) so that the results are 

meaningful and comparable. In this 

vein, DOE notes the need to develop a 

test procedure that addresses the highvariability concerns with its current 

cooking efficiency measure. DOE 

understands that IEC, AHAM, 

manufacturers, and others are exploring 

whether a test procedure can be 

developed that responds to the concerns 

DOE has raised. DOE expects to evaluate 

potential future test procedures to 

determine whether any address the 

concerns discussed above and meet the 

requirements of section 325(gg) of the 

Act, thereby making them suitable 

candidates for use in amending the DOE 

test procedure. If such test procedures 

are developed, DOE will consider a 

combined measure of microwave oven 

energy efficiency in a future rulemaking. 

B. Test Procedures 

1. Dishwashers and Dehumidifiers 

Because EISA 2007 provides 

prescriptive energy conservation 

standards for dishwashers and 

dehumidifiers based on existing DOE 

test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10) 

and (cc)(2), respectively), DOE is not 

proposing to make changes to the test 

procedures for these products at this 

time. DOE will consider test procedure 

amendments to address potential 

incorporation of standby mode and off 

mode power into the energy efficiency 

metrics in a later rulemaking or 

rulemakings that meet the March 31, 

2011, deadline set by the EISA 2007 

amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)) 

2. Cooking Products 

As noted in the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE indicated that it does not 

intend to modify test procedures for 

cooking products as part of this 

rulemaking, other than an amendment 

to consider the standby power 

consumption of microwave ovens. 72 

FR 64432, 64442 (Nov. 15, 2007). 

The DOE test procedure for 

microwave ovens references IEC 705– 

1988 Household Microwave Ovens— 

Methods for Measuring Performance, 

and Amendment 2–1993 (IEC 705) for 

methodology of measuring cooking 

performance. The Joint Comment on the 

ANOPR urged DOE to continue to use 

the existing DOE test method and the 

referenced IEC 705 for active power 

measurement for the EF calculation 

because it appears to provide greater 

precision of measurement than the 

current version of the IEC standard, 

redesignated as IEC 60705–1993 Edition 

3.2–2006 (IEC 60705). (Joint Comment 

No. 29 at p. 9) DOE observed during its 

efficiency testing of a representative 

sample of microwave ovens that IEC 

705–1988 provides a more stable and 

repeatable cooking efficiency 

measurement than IEC 60705. Thus, 

DOE will not amend the microwave 

oven test procedure to reference IEC 

60705 instead of IEC 705–1988. As 

discussed above, DOE is not aware of 

any other alternative test procedures 

that could be considered for 

incorporation by reference at this time. 

As part of the DOE microwave oven 

standby power tests, DOE reviewed IEC 

62301 to determine whether the 

specified test conditions were suitable 

for microwave oven tests. At the 

December 2007 ANOPR public meeting, 

DOE contemplated incorporation by 

reference of IEC 62301 into the DOE test 

procedure, but suggested several 

clarifications that would be required to 

deal with instances where the IEC test 

conditions were non-specific: (1) the 

microwave oven clock display should 

be set to 12 a.m. at the start of the test 

period; and (2) the standby power test 

should be run for a period of 12 hours 

to obtain a true average standby power, 

since clock power can vary as a function 

of displayed time, depending on the 

specific display technology. DOE sought 

comment on these potential 

modifications to the microwave oven 

test procedure, as well as any changes 

to the conventional cooking product test 

procedures to include standby power. 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE 

should modify the oven, cooktop, and 

microwave oven test procedures as 

necessary to measure the clock face 

standby energy use and any other 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62044 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

20Commercial clothes washers are typically used 

more frequently and filled with a larger load than 

residential clothes washers. 

standby energy use, such as control 

electronics and power supply losses. In 

addition, the Joint Comment stated that 

DOE should use IEC 62301 to test 

standby power, with the instruction to 

start the test with a clock setting of 12 

a.m. and run the test for 12 hours or a 

lesser period of time demonstrated 

mathematically to be representative of a 

12-hour period. (Joint Comment, No. 29 

at pp. 6 and 9) ASAP commented that 

it supports a test procedure change to 

address microwave oven standby power, 

and that this test procedure change 

should not be a hurdle to implementing 

a standard that addresses standby 

power. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at p. 72) GE 

Consumer and Industrial (GE), on the 

other hand, commented that it does not 

believe that there is justification for the 

development of ‘‘necessarily complex’’ 

new test procedures for cooking 

products. (GE, No. 30 at p. 2) 

DOE believes separate test procedure 

rulemakings for standby mode and off 

mode power for microwave ovens and 

conventional cooking products are 

warranted. To support this rulemaking, 

the test procedure change to incorporate 

microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode power has been initiated in 

parallel with the current rulemaking, 

and a final rule for the test procedure 

will be published before the publication 

of a final rule on energy conservation 

standards. For conventional cooking 

products, DOE sought data and 

stakeholder feedback on the decision to 

retain the existing test procedures in the 

November 2007 ANOPR (72 FR 66432, 

64513 (Nov. 15, 2007)), and did not 

receive any inputs. DOE does not have 

any data on standby power 

consumption in conventional cooking 

products that indicate the potential for 

significant energy savings. Thus, DOE 

will consider test procedure 

amendments in a later rulemaking that 

meets the March 31, 2011, deadline set 

by the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)) 

3. Commercial Clothes Washers 

EPCA directs DOE to use the same test 

procedures for CCWs as those 

established by DOE for RCWs. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) While DOE believes 

commercial laundry practices likely 

differ from residential practices,20 DOE 

believes that the existing clothes washer 

test procedure (at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix J) adequately 

accounts for the efficiency rating of 

CCWs, and that DOE’s methods for 

characterizing energy and water use in 

the NOPR analyses adequately account 

for the consumer usage patterns specific 

to CCWs. 72 FR 64432, 64442 (Nov. 15, 

2007). 

Alliance Laundry Systems (Alliance) 

commented that, as a first-order 

estimate, CCW usage patterns would be 

similar to those of the RCW market. 

Hence, Alliance supports the continued 

use of the existing test procedure as 

being generally representative of the 

multi-family and laundromat 

applications of the CCW segment of the 

market. (Alliance, No. 26 at p. 3) 

GE commented that the RCW test 

procedure gives credit for features, such 

as multiple water levels, which have no 

energy efficiency benefit in actual CCW 

use and which may confuse the end 

customer. Therefore, GE suggests that 

DOE develop a representative test 

procedure specifically for CCWs. (GE, 

No. 30 at p. 3) Similarly, during the MIA 

interviews, multiple manufacturers 

mentioned that the use of the RCW test 

procedure provides an incentive for 

CCW manufacturers to incorporate 

design options for which the RCW test 

procedure gives credit, but which are 

unlikely to save energy in actual CCW 

use or provide additional utility to 

consumers. For example, commenters 

stated that adaptive fill and load 

selector switches are unlikely to be used 

by consumers who generally pay a fixed 

fee per load and who are thus likely to 

run full-sized loads and/or select the 

maximum fill setting. However, 

commenters did not provide data that 

demonstrate differences between CCW 

and RCW usage patterns or the energy 

implications thereof, nor did they 

address the statutory requirement to 

utilize the RCW test procedure for 

CCWs. 

DOE recognizes that in certain 

situations, the controls and/or operation 

of a CCW (e.g., fill level) can be set so 

that the CCW will not necessarily have 

the energy and water savings that might 

be expected to occur for RCWs. 

However, DOE does not have sufficient 

usage data to alter its preliminary 

conclusion that the existing RCW test 

procedure is adequate to measure the 

energy consumption of CCWs. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

DOE considers a design option to be 

technologically feasible if it is in use by 

the respective industry or if research has 

progressed to the development of a 

working prototype. Therefore, in each 

standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 

screening analysis, based on 

information it has gathered regarding 

existing technology options and 

prototype designs. In consultation with 

manufacturers, design engineers, and 

others, DOE develops a list of design 

options for consideration in the 

rulemaking. Once DOE has determined 

that a particular design option is 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each design option in light of 

the following three additional criteria: 

(a) Practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service; (b) adverse impacts on 

product utility or availability; or (c) 

adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 4(a)(3) and (4). All design 

options that pass these screening criteria 

are candidates for further assessment in 

the engineering and subsequent 

analyses in the ANOPR stage. DOE may 

amend the list of retained design 

options in the NOPR analyses based on 

comments received on the ANOPR and 

on further research. 

All of the design options for cooking 

products and CCWs that DOE identified 

in the November 2007 ANOPR remain 

and were considered in today’s 

proposed rule. (See the TSD 

accompanying this notice, chapter 4.) 

a. Cooking Products 

During MIA interviews, 

manufacturers commented that 

improved contact conductance for 

electric open (coil) element cooktops 

was more dependent on the flatness of 

the cookware used by the consumer 

rather than the design of the heating 

element itself. DOE is unaware of data 

substantiating these statements, and 

therefore chose to retain the design 

option for the purposes of this NOPR. 

In addition to the design options for 

microwave oven cooking efficiency 

presented in the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE also investigated 

technology options that reduce standby 

power. DOE identified lower-power 

display technologies, improved power 

supplies and controllers, and alternative 

cooking sensor technologies as options 

to reduce standby power. DOE 

conducted this research when it became 

aware of the likelihood of EISA 2007 

being signed, which DOE understood 

was to contain provisions pertaining to 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption. Therefore, DOE presented 

details of each design option to 

stakeholders at the December 2007 

public meeting even though the results 

were not available in time for 

publication in the November 2007 

ANOPR. DOE believes all of these 

options are technologically feasible, and 

in the ANOPR invited comment on 

technology options that reduce standby 

power in microwave ovens. 72 FR 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62045 

64432, 64513 (Nov. 15, 2007). For more 

details of these technology options and 

stakeholder comments, see section IV.B 

of this notice. 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

Alliance concurred with the CCW 

design options that DOE screened out 

and requested that DOE also screen out 

‘‘added insulation’’ and ‘‘tighter tub 

tolerances’’ from the CCW list of design 

options. Alliance stated that neither of 

these has been shown to impact energy 

consumption. (Alliance, No. 26 at p. 3) 

Since DOE received no data regarding 

the effectiveness of these two design 

options, today’s NOPR retains them. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

EPCA requires as part of an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking that 

DOE must ‘‘determine the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency or 

maximum reduction in energy use that 

is technologically feasible’’ for such 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 

6316(a)) Table III.1 lists the ‘‘max-tech’’ 

levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking. 

TABLE III.1—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR COOKING PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Product Max-Tech 

EF 

Gas Cooktops .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.42

Electric Open (Coil) Cooktops ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.769

Electric Smooth Cooktops ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.753

Gas Standard Ovens ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0583 

Gas Self-Clean Ovens ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0632 

Electric Standard Ovens .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1209 

Electric Self-Clean Ovens ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.1123 

Microwave Ovens .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.602

Max-Tech 

Standby 

Power (W) 

Microwave Ovens .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.02 W 

Max-Tech 

MEF 

(ft3/kWh) 

Max-Tech 

WF 

(gal/ft3) 

Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers .................................................................................................................... 1.76 8.3

Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers ................................................................................................................. 2.35 4.4

a. Cooking Products 

For cooking products, DOE has 

retained the max-tech efficiency levels 

that the previous analysis outlined in 

the 1996 TSD defined, for the reasons 

that follow. DOE does not have 

efficiency data for conventional cooking 

products currently on the market, since 

manufacturers are not required to report 

EF. However, as reported in the 

November 2007 ANOPR, manufacturers 

have stated there have been no 

substantive changes in technology since 

the 1996 analysis that would affect maxtech efficiency levels. 72 FR 64432, 

64436 and 64452 (Nov. 15, 2007). 

For microwave ovens, both AHAM 

data and DOE supplemental testing, as 

presented at the December 2007 public 

meeting, confirmed that the max-tech 

EF level from the 1996 TSD remains the 

max-tech level in the context of the 

current rulemaking. The max-tech 

microwave oven standby power level 

corresponds to a unit equipped with a 

default automatic power-down function 

that shuts off certain power-consuming 

components after a specified period of 

user inactivity. The standby power at 

max-tech was obtained from a 

microwave oven currently on the market 

in Korea which incorporates such a 

feature. (See the TSD accompanying this 

notice, chapter 5.) 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

For CCWs, DOE recognizes that MEF 

and WF pairings may not 

simultaneously achieve max-tech levels. 

That is, a CCW with the highest possible 

MEF may not achieve the lowest 

possible WF. Similarly, a CCW with the 

lowest WF may not achieve the highest 

MEF. DOE considered several models 

currently available to determine maxtech values that best represent optimal 

performance for CCWs on the market 

today. DOE did not specify max-tech 

levels that represent a ‘‘hybrid’’ of the 

highest possible MEF and the lowest 

possible WF for each product class. For 

more details on this selection, see 

section IV.C.1 of this notice. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet to 

estimate energy savings from amended 

standards for the appliance products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

(Section IV.E of this notice and in 

chapter 11 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice describe the NIA spreadsheet 

model.) DOE forecasted energy savings 

over the period of analysis (beginning in 

2012, the year that amended standards 

would go into effect, and ending in 

2042) for each TSL, relative to the base 

case, which represents the forecast of 

energy consumption in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to amended energy 

conservation standards as the difference 

in energy consumption between the 

standards case and the base case. 

The base case considers market 

demand for more efficient products. For 

example, the market share of gas 

cooking appliances with standing pilot 

ignition systems has been declining for 

several years. (See section IV.E.3 of this 

notice and chapter 11 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for more 

details.) As kitchens are remodeled or 

updated, consumers frequently take the 

opportunity to replace existing 

appliances with new ones, often 

replacing older ranges, ovens, and 

cooktops that incorporated standing 

pilots with models that are ignited 

electronically. The National Electrical 

Code (NEC) allows gas-fired appliances 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62046 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

to be attached to existing small 

appliance branch circuits, making such 

retrofits during kitchen remodels 

relatively easy. (2008 NEC section 

210.52(B)(2)) While outlets for gas-fired 

ovens, ranges, and cooktops are not 

required by the NEC, many local and 

State building codes require them in 

new construction and kitchen 

renovations, gradually reducing the 

number of kitchens in which there are 

no such outlets. Section IV.D.2.a 

describes in detail the additional 

installation costs that would be incurred 

by consumers in the event that 

standards are issued for gas cooking 

products that eliminate the use of 

standing pilot ignition systems. The 

added installation costs are accounted 

for in the evaluation of consumer 

economic impacts in the LCC and PBP 

analysis and the NIA. 

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates 

the electricity savings in ‘‘site energy’’ 

expressed in kWh. Site energy is the 

energy directly consumed on location 

by an individual product. DOE reports 

national energy savings on an annual 

basis in terms of the aggregated source 

energy savings, which is the savings of 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the energy consumed at the 

site. To convert site energy to source 

energy, DOE derived conversion factors, 

which change with time, from AEO 

2008. (See TSD chapter 11 

accompanying this notice for further 

details.) 

2. Significance of Savings 

EPCA, as amended, prohibits DOE 

from adopting a standard for a product 

if that standard would not result in 

‘‘significant’’ energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) While the Act does not 

define the term ‘‘significant,’’ the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense 

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

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

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in this context to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for energy conservation 

standards at each of the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking are 

nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE 

considers them ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted earlier, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

following sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

To determine the quantitative impacts 

of a new or amended standard on 

manufacturers, the economic impact 

analysis is based on an annual-cashflow approach. This includes both a 

short-term assessment, based on the cost 

and capital requirements during the 

period between the announcement of a 

regulation and the time when the 

regulation becomes effective, and a 

long-term assessment. The impacts 

analyzed include INPV (which values 

the industry on the basis of expected 

future cash flows), cash flows by year, 

changes in revenue and income, and 

other measures of impact, as 

appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 

reports the impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, with particular attention 

to impacts on small manufacturers. 

Third, DOE considers the impact of 

standards on domestic manufacturer 

employment, manufacturing capacity, 

plant closures, and loss of capital 

investment. Finally, DOE takes into 

account cumulative impacts of different 

regulations (not limited to DOE) on 

manufacturers. 

For consumers, measures of economic 

impact include the changes in LCC and 

payback period for the product at each 

TSL. Under EPCA, the LCC is one of the 

seven factors to be considered in 

determining economic justification. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) It is discussed 

in detail in the section below. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of equipment (including the 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy and maintenance 

expenditures), discounted over the 

lifetime of the appliance or equipment. 

In this rulemaking, DOE calculated 

both LCC and LCC savings for various 

efficiency levels. For cooking products, 

the LCC analysis estimated the LCC for 

representative equipment in housing 

units that represent the segment of the 

U.S. housing stock that uses these 

appliances. Through the use of a 

housing stock sample, DOE determined 

for each household in the sample the 

energy consumption and energy price of 

the cooking product. Thus, by using a 

representative sample of households, 

the analysis captured the wide 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices associated with cooking 

product use. 

For CCWs, although DOE was unable 

to develop a representative sample of 

the building stock that uses the 

appliance, it still established the 

variability and uncertainty in energy 

and water use by defining the 

uncertainty and variability in the use 

(cycles per day) of the equipment. The 

variability in energy and water pricing 

were characterized by regional 

differences in energy and water prices. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in other inputs, such as 

equipment lifetime and discount rate, 

DOE used a distribution of values with 

probabilities attached to each value. 

Therefore, for each housing unit with 

a cooking appliance and each consumer 

with a CCW, DOE sampled the values of 

these inputs from the probability 

distributions. As a result, the analysis 

produced a range of LCCs. This 

approach permits DOE to identify the 

percentage of consumers achieving LCC 

savings or attaining certain payback 

values due to an increased energy 

conservation standard, in addition to 

the average LCC savings or average 

payback for that standard. DOE presents 

the LCC savings as a distribution, with 

a mean value and a range, and for 

purposes of the analysis, DOE assumed 

that the consumer purchases the 

product in 2012. 

c. Energy Savings 

While significant energy conservation 

is a separate statutory requirement for 

imposing an energy conservation 

standard, EPCA requires DOE, in 

determining the economic justification 

of a standard, to consider the total 

projected energy savings that are 

expected to result directly from the 

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

DOE used the NIA spreadsheet results 

in its consideration of total projected 

savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

DOE considered whether the evaluated 

design options would likely lessen the 

utility or performance of the products 

under consideration in this rulemaking. 

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

determined that none of the considered 

TSLs would reduce the utility or 

performance of the products under 

consideration in the rulemaking. 

• For gas cooking products, the 

potential elimination of standing pilot 

ignition systems and replacement with 

electronic ignition systems retains the 

basic consumer utility of igniting the gas 

to initiate a cooking process, while 

following safety requirements specified 

in American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) Z21.1–2005 and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62047 

21ANSI standards are available at http:// 

www.ansi.org. 

22The EIA approves the use of the name NEMS 

to describe only an AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name NEMS–BT refers to the 

model as used here. (‘‘BT’’ stands for DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program.) For more 

information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 

Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) 

(Feb. 1998) (available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ 

FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf). 

Addenda 1–2007, Household Cooking 

Gas Appliances (ANSI Z21.1).21

• For microwave ovens, all consumer 

utility features that affect standby 

power, such as a clock display and a 

cooking sensor, would be retained. 

• For CCWs, the proposed standards 

maintain the consumer utility of 

washing clothes in a washer with either 

top or front access. 

Alliance, Whirlpool, and AHAM 

commented in support of multiple 

product classes for CCWs due in part to 

consumer utility issues, including 

capacity, reliability, and access of axis. 

(Alliance, No. 26 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 

28 at pp. 3–4; AHAM No. 32, at pp. 3– 

4) DOE believes that all of these 

consumer utilities will be maintained by 

the standards under consideration, as is 

discussed in the context of the CCW 

product class definition in section 

IV.A.2 of this notice. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from standards. It directs the 

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary, not later 

than 60 days after the publication of a 

proposed rule, together with an analysis 

of the nature and extent of such impact. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) 

DOE has transmitted a copy of today’s 

proposed rule to the Attorney General 

and has requested that the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) provide its 

determination on this issue. 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

The non-monetary benefits of the 

proposed standard are likely to be 

reflected in improvements to the 

security and reliability of the Nation’s 

energy system-namely, reductions in the 

overall demand for energy will result in 

reduced costs for maintaining reliability 

of the Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may impact the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. This analysis captures the 

effects of efficiency improvements on 

electricity consumption by the 

appliance products which are the 

subject of this rulemaking. 

The proposed standard also is likely 

to result in improvements to the 

environment. In quantifying these 

improvements, DOE has defined a range 

of primary energy conversion factors 

and associated emission reductions 

based on the estimated level of power 

generation displaced by energy 

conservation standards. DOE reports the 

environmental effects from each TSL for 

this equipment in the environmental 

assessment in the TSD. (42. U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), there is a rebuttable 

presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased installed cost 

for a product that meets the standard is 

less than three times the value of the 

first-year energy savings resulting from 

the standard (and water savings in the 

case of a water efficiency standard). 

However, although DOE examined the 

rebuttable-presumption criteria, it 

determined economic justification for 

the proposed standard levels through a 

detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of increased efficiency as 

described above, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). Section IV.D.12 of this 

notice addresses the rebuttablepresumption payback calculation. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Public Comments 

DOE used spreadsheet models to 

estimate the impacts of the TSLs used 

in weighing the benefits and burdens of 

amended standards for the products that 

are the subject of this rulemaking. 

Specifically, it used the engineering 

spreadsheet to develop the relationship 

between cost and efficiency for these 

products and to calculate the simple 

payback period for the purposes of 

addressing the rebuttable presumption 

that a standard with a payback period of 

less than three years is economically 

justified. The LCC spreadsheet 

calculates the consumer benefits and 

payback periods for amended energy 

conservation standards. The NIA 

spreadsheet provides shipments 

forecasts and then calculates NES and 

NPV impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

also assessed manufacturer impacts, 

largely through use of the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards for the appliance products on 

utilities and the environment. DOE used 

a version of EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility 

and environmental analyses. The NEMS 

model simulates the energy economy of 

the United States and has been 

developed over several years by the EIA 

primarily for the purpose of preparing 

the Annual Energy Outlook. The NEMS 

produces forecasts for the United States 

that are available in the public domain. 

The version of NEMS used for appliance 

standards analysis is called NEMS–BT 

and is primarily based on the AEO 2008 

with minor modifications.22 The 

NEMS–BT offers a sophisticated picture 

of the effect of standards, since it 

accounts for the interactions between 

the various energy supply and demand 

sectors and the economy as a whole. 

A. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides covered 

products into classes by the type of 

energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that affect 

consumer utility and efficiency. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q); 6316(a)) Different energy 

conservation standards may apply to 

different product classes. Id. 

1. Cooking Products 

For cooking products, DOE based its 

product classes on energy source (e.g., 

gas or electric) and cooking method 

(e.g., cooktops, ovens, and microwave 

ovens). DOE identified five categories of 

cooking products: gas cooktops, electric 

cooktops, gas ovens, electric ovens, and 

microwave ovens. In its regulations 

implementing EPCA, DOE defines a 

‘‘conventional range’’ as ‘‘a class of 

kitchen ranges and ovens which is a 

household cooking appliance consisting 

of a conventional cooking top and one 

or more conventional ovens.’’ 10 CFR 

430.2. The November 2007 ANOPR 

presents DOE’s reasons for not treating 

gas and electric ranges as a distinct 

product category and for not basing its 

product classes on that category. 72 FR 

64432, 64443 (Nov. 15, 2007). For 

example, DOE defined a single product 

class for gas cooktops as gas cooktops 

with conventional burners. 

For electric cooktops, DOE 

determined in the 1996 TSD that the 

ease of cleaning smooth elements 

provides greater utility to the consumer 

than coil elements, and that smooth 

elements typically consume more 

energy than coil elements. Therefore, 

DOE has defined two separate product 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62048 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

classes for open (coil) element and 

smooth element electric cooktops. 

For electric ovens, DOE determined 

that the type of oven-cleaning system is 

a utility feature that affects performance. 

DOE found that standard ovens and 

ovens using a catalytic continuouscleaning process use roughly the same 

amount of energy. On the other hand, 

self-cleaning ovens use a pyrolytic 

process that provides enhanced 

consumer utility with different overall 

energy consumption, as compared to 

either standard or catalytically lined 

ovens, due to the amount of energy used 

during the cleaning cycle and better 

insulation. Thus, DOE has defined two 

product classes for electric ovens: 

standard ovens with or without a 

catalytic line and self-cleaning ovens. 

DOE applied the same reasoning for 

gas ovens as it used for electric ovens, 

defining two product classes, one for 

standard ovens with or without a 

catalytic line and one for self-cleaning 

ovens. 

DOE determined that microwave 

ovens constitute a single product class 

for the purposes of this rulemaking. 

This product class can encompass 

microwave ovens with and without 

browning (thermal) elements, but does 

not include microwave ovens that 

incorporate convection systems. For a 

discussion of why DOE is not 

considering microwave ovens with 

convection capability in this 

rulemaking, see section IV.A.1.c of this 

notice. 

In sum, in this rulemaking DOE is 

using the following eight product 

classes in analyzing and setting 

standards for cooking products: 

• Gas cooktop/conventional burners; 

• Electric cooktop/open (coil) 

elements; 

• Electric cooktop/smooth elements; 

• Gas oven/standard oven; 

• Gas oven/self-clean oven; 

• Electric oven/standard oven; 

• Electric oven/self-clean oven; and 

• Microwave oven. 

For more information on the 

specification of product classes for 

cooking products, see chapter 3 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice. 

a. Standing Pilot Ignition Systems 

DOE proposed in the November 2007 

ANOPR that standing pilot ignition 

systems do not provide unique utility 

that would warrant a separate product 

class for gas cooking products 

incorporating them, and requested 

comment on such a determination for 

product classes. 72 FR 66432, 64463 and 

64513 (Nov. 15, 2007). The American 

Gas Association (AGA) and GE 

commented that standing pilot ignition 

systems do provide unique utility for 

several reasons, including: (1) The 

ability to operate the range during 

electrical power outages, (2) providing 

safe ignition where electrical supply is 

unavailable (such as lodges and hunting 

cabins) or not located reasonably close 

to the range, and (3) providing safe 

ignition where religious and cultural 

practices prohibit the use of electronic 

ignition. (AGA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at p. 21; AGA, No. 

27 at p. 2; GE, No. 30 at p. 2) AGA 

commented that religious and cultural 

prohibitions on the use of electricity in 

the United States were the reason for the 

original EPCA language requiring 

electronic ignition only on gas cooking 

products with other electrical features. 

(AGA, No. 27 at pp. 2, 14) AGA further 

stated that this consideration was the 

reason for DOE’s exception allowing 

standing pilot lights on gravity gas-fired 

boilers in the EISA 2007. (AGA, No. 27 

at p. 2) On the other hand, the Joint 

Comment stated that non-standing pilot 

ignition (i.e., electronic ignition) should 

be a design option and that an 

exemption for standing pilot ignition 

ranges is inappropriate. (Joint Comment, 

No. 29 at p. 6) 

In considering standing pilot ignition 

systems as either a separate product 

class or a design option, DOE notes that 

the purpose of such systems is to ignite 

the gas when burner operation is called 

for during a cooking process, and either 

standing pilot or electronic ignition 

provides this function. In addition, DOE 

has concluded from previous analysis 

that the average consumer does not 

experience frequent enough or long 

enough power outages to consider the 

ability to operate in the event of an 

electric power outage a significant 

utility. 

DOE also addressed a similar issue in 

the residential furnace and boiler 

rulemaking, where DOE made an 

exception to allow standing pilot 

ignition for gravity gas-fed boilers. 

Gravity gas-fed boilers, however, are a 

type of heating equipment that represent 

a unique utility in that they do not 

require an electric circulation motor to 

operate, a utility which happens to 

accommodate religious and cultural 

practices which prohibit electronic 

ignition as well. Thus, the exception is 

based on continuing to allow products 

with certain performance characteristics 

to be available to all consumers. But 

DOE is unable to create a similar 

exception for gas cooking products 

because there is no unique utility 

associated with standing pilot ignition. 

Through market research, DOE 

determined that battery-powered 

electronic ignition systems have been 

implemented in other products, such as 

instantaneous gas water heaters, 

barbeques, furnaces, and other 

appliances, and the use of such ignition 

systems appears acceptable under ANSI 

Z21.1. Therefore, subgroups with 

religious and cultural practices which 

prohibit the use of line electricity (i.e., 

electricity from the utility grid) can still 

use gas cooking products without 

standing pilots, assuming gas cooking 

products are made available with 

battery-powered ignition. Furthermore, 

there is not expected to be any 

appreciable difference in cooking 

performance between gas cooking 

products with or without a standing 

pilot. Thus, DOE concludes that 

standing pilot ignition systems do not 

provide a distinct utility and that a 

separate class for standing pilot ignition 

systems is not warranted under section 

325(q)(1) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) 

b. Commercial-Style Cooking Products 

and Induction Technology 

DOE stated in the November 2007 

ANOPR that it lacks efficiency data to 

determine whether certain designs (e.g., 

commercial-style cooking products) and 

certain technologies (e.g., induction 

cooktops) should be excluded from the 

rulemaking. 72 FR 64432, 64444 and 

64460 (Nov. 15, 2007). AHAM, 

Whirlpool, and Sub-Zero Wolf 

Incorporated (Wolf) supported DOE’s 

approach to exclude commercial-style 

cooking products, given the relatively 

small gains in energy savings for 

cooking products as a whole, the small 

relative size of the commercial-style 

products market, and required changes 

to the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 32 at 

p. 3, 9; Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 6; Wolf, 

No. 24 at p. 2) AHAM and Wolf also 

stated that induction technology should 

not be considered for a variety of 

reasons, including (1) the lack of an 

applicable test procedure, (2) the 

relatively small gains in energy savings 

for cooking products as a whole, (3) the 

small relative size of the induction 

cooking market, and (4) the special 

cookware requirements. (Wolf, No. 24 at 

p. 2; AHAM, No. 32 at p. 3) DOE did 

not receive any comments opposing this 

proposal. 

Therefore, absent any comment 

opposing the proposal and in light of 

the comments in support of the 

proposal, DOE is not considering 

commercial-style cooking products and 

induction technology in this rulemaking 

as proposed in the November 2007 

ANOPR. 

c. Microwave Ovens 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

considered a single product class for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62049 

23 42 U.S.C. 6313(e); codified at 10 CFR 431.156. 

24Typically, vertical-axis clothes washers are 

accessed from the top (also known as ‘‘toploaders’’), while horizontal-axis clothes washers are 

accessed from the front (also known as ‘‘frontloaders’’). However, a limited number of residential 

horizontal-axis clothes washers which are 

accessible from the top (using a hatch in the wash 

basket) are currently available, although DOE is 

unaware of any such CCWs on the market. For the 

purposes of this analysis, the terms ‘‘vertical-axis’’ 

and ‘‘top-loading’’ will be used interchangeably, as 

will the terms ‘‘horizontal-axis’’ and ‘‘frontloading.’’ Additionally, clothes washers that have a 

wash basket whose axis of rotation is tilted from 

horizontal are considered to be horizontal-axis 

machines. 

25This provision is also applicable to CCWs, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). 

microwave ovens. The Joint Comment 

agreed that microwave ovens should be 

represented in a single product class 

without consideration of cavity size or 

output power rating, due to the lack of 

correlation between microwave oven 

size and efficiency demonstrated by 

both the AHAM and DOE studies. (Joint 

Comment, No. 29 at p. 9) AHAM 

opposed a single microwave oven 

product class, stating that the product 

class should be broken up into 

subcategories according to features that 

may be different than when the standard 

was first put into effect many years ago. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23.7 at pp. 32–33) 

Based on the data already supplied to 

DOE by AHAM, and by DOE’s own 

testing, no features or utilities were 

observed to be uniquely correlated with 

efficiency such that they would warrant 

defining multiple product classes for 

microwave ovens, according to the 

criteria put forth by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) Thus, for the purposes of this 

rulemaking, DOE has retained a single 

product class for microwave ovens. 

2. Commercial Clothes Washers 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

stated that it planned to consider a 

single product class for CCWs in 

accordance with the prescriptive 

standards for such equipment set in 

EPACT 2005. 72 FR 64432, 64465 (Nov. 

15, 2007). Through EPACT 2005, 

Congress imposed a minimum energy 

efficiency threshold for all CCWs to 

meet.23 EPACT 2005 placed all CCWs 

into a single product class with a single 

energy efficiency and water efficiency 

standard for all covered equipment. Id. 

Accordingly, these standards encompass 

CCWs with wash baskets that rotate 

around either a vertical or horizontal 

axis.24

At the same time, DOE noted in the 

ANOPR that it has the authority to 

establish additional product classes 

within the CCW product category if 

warranted, and requested data and 

information on the product class 

definitions in the November 2007 

ANOPR. 72 FR 64432, 64513 (Nov. 15, 

2007). AHAM, Alliance, and Whirlpool 

supported two CCW product classes, 

suggesting that DOE should set a 

separate standard for top-loaders and 

front-loaders. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 35–36 and 

pp. 81–82; Alliance, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 36–37; and 

Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 3–4) 

In considering whether separate 

classes are warranted, DOE must 

consider the utility and performance 

characteristics to determine whether the 

relevant requirements have been met. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q); 6313(a)) Among the 

criteria DOE considered when 

examining potential separate product 

classes for clothes washers was the 

wash basket axis of rotation, which DOE 

also used for RCWs. (See 10 CFR 

430.32(g)) 

Alliance stated that front-loading and 

top-loading CCWs show no overlap in 

operating efficiency, in terms of MEF 

and WF, and that they have unique 

characteristics. For example, such 

characteristics include the ability of toploaders to allow a consumer to lift the 

lid mid-cycle to add an item, whereas 

front-loaders must drain the water in the 

drum before the door can be opened. 

(Alliance, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 23.7 at pp. 36–37) 

DOE notes that a review of the current 

California Energy Commission (CEC), 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), 

and ENERGY STAR clothes washer 

product databases shows some overlap 

in energy efficiency for top-loading and 

front-loading CCWs. However, this 

overlap is not nearly as broad as in the 

RCW market. DOE agrees that the 

efficiency levels that can be achieved by 

front-loading CCWs are generally higher 

than the levels that can be achieved by 

top-loading CCWs. 

Regarding product utility, Whirlpool 

cited the November 2007 ANOPR’s 

statement that ‘‘[T]he residential clothes 

washer rulemaking history clearly 

demonstrated that size, axis of access, 

and certain technologies had consumer 

utility that affect performance and, 

therefore, warranted separate product 

classes for residential products.’’ 

Whirlpool’s point was that RCWs and 

CCWs are analogous products that 

should be treated in a consistent 

fashion. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 4) 

ASAP, on the other hand, agreed with 

DOE’s tentative approach of maintaining 

a single product class, noting that 

Congress and DOE have set standards 

over the last 20 years that have changed 

the mix of unit characteristics available 

on the market. ASAP argued that in an 

earlier RCW efficiency standards 

rulemaking, DOE had eliminated the 

warm rinse cycle, a feature many 

consumers liked. ASAP concluded that 

maintaining every characteristic on the 

market would restrict DOE’s ability to 

set any efficiency standards. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23.7 at 

pp. 38–40) ASAP also commented that 

the consumer utility of CCWs to wash 

clothes is independent of whether they 

are accessed from the top or the front. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23.7 at pp. 83–84) 

Although DOE considered issuing a 

single CCW product class in the ANOPR 

that would encompass both top-loading 

and front-loading CCWs, further 

consideration of the relevant statutory 

provisions and the public comments on 

the November 2007 ANOPR have led 

DOE to conclude that EPCA does not 

permit adoption of a standard that 

would eliminate top-loading CCWs. 

Accordingly, for the reasons explained 

below, DOE has decided to establish 

two classes of CCWs based upon axis of 

access (i.e., top-loading or frontloading). 

When directing the Secretary to 

consider amendments to the energy 

efficiency standards for CCWs, Congress 

did not mandate use of a single class or 

alter other relevant provisions of the 

statute related to setting classes. First, 

under 42 U.S.C. 6311(21), the definition 

of ‘‘commercial clothes washer’’ 

specifically includes both horizontalaxis clothes washers (front-loading 

machines) and vertical-axis clothes 

washers (top-loading machines). 

Further, the prescriptive standards for 

CCWs (1.26 MEF/9.5 WF), as set forth in 

42 U.S.C. 6313(e), are achievable by 

both top-loading and front-loading 

machines. Neither provision indicates 

an intention to eliminate either type of 

CCW currently available. 

Next, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) 25 provides, 

‘‘The Secretary may not prescribe an 

amended or new standard * * * that is 

likely to result in the unavailability in 

the United States in any covered 

product type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States 

at the time of the Secretary’s finding.’’ 

This statutory provision demonstrates 

congressional intent to forego potential 

energy savings under certain 

enumerated circumstances. DOE has 

determined that this provision applies 

to the present CCW rulemaking. 

In previous rulemakings, DOE has 

concluded that the method of ‘‘loading’’ 

clothes in washers (axis of access) is a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62050 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

26 DOE’s denial of the CEC petition is currently 

in litigation (California Energy Comm’n v. DOE, No. 

07–71576 (9th Cir. filed April 23, 2007)). 

27Cooking sensors, which infer the cooking state 

of the food load, can reduce cook times and 

potentially produce real-world energy savings, 

although this benefit is not currently captured by 

the DOE test procedure and DOE is unaware of any 

data quantifying such an effect. 

‘‘feature’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and, consequently, 

established separate product classes for 

top-loading and front-loading RCWs. (56 

FR 22263 (May 14, 1991)) DOE 

reiterated this position in denying the 

California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 

petition for waiver from Federal 

preemption of its RCW regulation.26 (71 

FR 78157 (Dec. 28, 2006)) DOE denied 

the CEC petition for three separate and 

independent reasons, one of which was 

that ‘‘interested parties demonstrated by 

a preponderance of evidence that the 

State of California regulation would 

likely result in the unavailability of a 

class of residential clothes washers in 

California. * * * [T]he rule would 

violate EPCA in another way, i.e., it 

would mandate the 6.0 WF standard in 

2010, which would likely result in the 

unavailability of top-loader residential 

clothes washers.’’ Id. at 78157–58. 

Given the similarities in technologies 

and design and operating characteristics 

between RCWs and CCWs, in DOE’s 

judgment, the axis of access must be 

accorded similar treatment in the 

context of the current CCW rulemaking. 

If DOE were to propose an amended 

standard for CCWs under the statutory 

criteria set forth in EPCA based upon a 

single product class, the result would be 

a standard that would effectively 

eliminate top-loading CCWs from the 

market, because it would set an MEF for 

all CCWs at a level significantly higher 

than the max-tech for top-loading 

machines. Because such a standard 

would violate the statute (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4); 6313(a)), DOE has decided to 

propose separate product classes and 

accompanying standards for top-loading 

and front-loading CCWs in today’s 

NOPR. 

B. Technology Assessment 

In the market and technology 

assessment DOE conducted for the 

November 2007 ANOPR, DOE identified 

technology options available to improve 

the energy efficiency of each type of 

covered product. (See the TSD 

accompanying this notice, chapter 3.) A 

discussion of these options as they 

relate to the product categories at issue 

in this rulemaking follows. 

1. Cooking Products 

At the December 2007 public meeting, 

DOE summarized its initial observations 

of technologies associated with standby 

power in microwave ovens and invited 

comment. DOE investigated technology 

options that appeared to be feasible 

means of decreasing standby power. 

Based on observations from tests, DOE 

suggested that microwave oven standby 

power largely depends on the display 

technology used, the associated power 

supplies and controllers, and the 

presence or lack of a cooking sensor that 

requires standby power.27 AHAM stated 

that functions such as sensors, clocks, 

and perhaps others consume standby 

power but also provide consumer 

utility. If a standby power standard is 

developed, AHAM believes it is critical 

to look at these functions and identify 

them properly in order to change the 

test procedure appropriately. AHAM 

stated it would work with DOE to 

identify the changes and some of the 

consumer utilities. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 70– 

71) 

According to Whirlpool, microwave 

ovens use standby power primarily for 

a clock and the instant-on capability. 

Whirlpool noted that consumers who 

purchase over-the-range microwave 

ovens with features such as sensing and 

auto-cook cycles expect a display that 

allows execution of these capabilities, 

matches their other premium appliances 

such as their ranges, and differentiates 

itself from the simple display on a basicfunctionality countertop microwave 

oven. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 1–2; 

Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 23.7 at p. 73) 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

commented that it does not consider 

cooking sensors in microwave ovens to 

be a part of ‘‘standby,’’ since the sensors 

perform useful and helpful functions to 

consumers. EEI stated that DOE should 

test microwave ovens to see if cooking 

sensors reduce overall cooking times 

because reduced cooking times will 

likely create greater energy savings than 

the standby energy consumption of the 

sensor. (EEI, No. 25 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE will analyze any data and 

information provided by stakeholders to 

evaluate the utility provided by specific 

features that contribute to microwave 

oven standby power. In addition, DOE 

has conducted additional research on 

several microwave oven technologies 

that significantly affect standby power, 

including cooking sensors, display 

technologies, and control strategies and 

associated control boards. 

a. Cooking Sensors 

Product teardowns performed by DOE 

during the November 2007 ANOPR 

analyses revealed that the most common 

identifiable cooking sensors are absolute 

humidity sensors. This sensor 

technology currently requires standby 

power in the range of 1 to 2 W to keep 

the sensing element heated, and also 

requires warm-up times in excess of two 

minutes if the sensor power is switched 

off. Japanese microwave oven 

manufacturers stated that they are 

unaware of any absolute humidity 

sensors that did not require standby 

power to stay warm. Standby testing by 

DOE and AHAM revealed no microwave 

ovens with cooking sensors that 

consume less than 2 W in standby 

mode. 

EEI questioned whether cooking 

sensors that lack multi-minute warm-up 

times exist, since microwave oven 

cooking times typically do not exceed 

two minutes. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at p. 234) The Joint 

Comment stated that, in the unlikely 

event that there is not a straightforward 

technical solution (e.g., a fasterstabilizing gas-sensing medium) to 

existing sensor technology, DOE should 

look into alternative sensing approaches 

to cooking status. The Joint Comment 

stated that if DOE fails to find standardtype cook sensors with shorter 

stabilization times or alternative sensing 

and control strategies, at a minimum, 

DOE should evaluate other options 

including (1) an auto power-down mode 

for cooking sensing devices that is 

consumer programmable, and (2) 

requirements that microwave ovens be 

shipped with the cooking sensor 

disabled. (Joint Comment, No. 29 at p. 

8) 

Whirlpool commented that a potential 

standby power standard could eliminate 

cooking sensors in microwave ovens as 

current cooking sensors typically 

require two minutes to warm up before 

use. According to Whirlpool, imposing 

a two-minute waiting period before each 

microwave oven use would negate 

much of its consumer utility. 

(Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 1–3) 

During teardown analyses, DOE 

observed that microwave ovens from 

one manufacturer use a piezoelectric 

steam sensor, which requires zero 

power in standby mode. In addition, 

DOE has identified infrared and weight 

sensors with little to no warm-up time 

that do not consume standby power and 

that have been applied successfully in 

microwave ovens currently available in 

the Japanese market. DOE has also 

identified relative humidity sensors as a 

type of zero-standby sensor that can be 

used in a microwave oven, but is 

unaware of any microwave ovens on the 

market that use this type of sensor. 

Lastly, DOE was made aware of an 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62051 

absolute humidity sensor that requires 

no standby power, has zero incremental 

cost above that of a conventional 

absolute humidity sensor, and is in the 

process of being phased into production 

for a major microwave oven supplier to 

the U.S. market. Based on its research 

and manufacturer interviews, DOE 

believes that the number of different 

sensor technologies available on the 

market that do not require standby 

power suggests that the utility of a 

cooking sensor can be maintained with 

zero standby power. Further, DOE 

believes all manufacturers could 

transition to no-standby-power cooking 

sensors at a zero incremental cost for the 

sensor change by the effective date of a 

proposed standby power standard. 

b. Display Technologies 

During reverse-engineering activities 

conducted as part of the November 2007 

ANOPR analysis, DOE observed three 

different display types used in 

microwave ovens: Light-emitting diode 

(LED) displays, liquid crystal displays 

(LCD) with and without backlighting, 

and vacuum fluorescent displays (VFD). 

(See chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice for further discussion of 

these technologies.) Within the 32-unit 

sample that DOE examined, microwave 

ovens equipped with VFDs consumed 

the most power, on average, followed by 

units featuring backlit LCDs, LEDs, and 

non-backlit LCDs. DOE sought comment 

regarding the consumer utility of 

different display technologies. 

The Joint Comment stated that, unless 

a unique consumer utility can be shown 

for VFDs, the standard level analyzed 

should be based on LCD backlit or LED 

displays. According to the Joint 

Comment, LED and organic LED (OLED) 

products have dramatically increasing 

efficiency performance, and more color 

palettes are becoming available. In their 

opinion, a 1.0 to 1.5 W combined 

allowance for clock face display and 

illumination with power supply losses 

appears more than ample in view of 

rapidly improving power supply and 

lighting technologies. (Joint Comment, 

No. 29 at pp. 8–9) 

Interviews DOE conducted with 

display manufacturers revealed that 

VFDs can achieve higher brightness 

levels, wider viewing angles, and higher 

contrast than backlit LCDs. Display 

manufacturers also stated that LEDs 

have largely comparable performance to 

VFDs in terms of brightness and viewing 

angle. A VFD manufacturer mentioned 

that, while VFD technologies with 

efficiencies comparable to backlit LCDs 

do exist, such displays are substantially 

more expensive than the VFDs 

commonly found in microwave ovens 

today. 

Multiple manufacturers of cooking 

products interviewed as part of the MIA 

process mentioned the need to 

differentiate their cooking appliance 

lines from those of their competitors 

with (among other things) coordinated 

displays and user interfaces. 

Manufacturers noted that LCD displays 

(backlit or not) do not work well in 

appliances that get very hot, such as 

ovens, due to thermal limitations. 

Manufacturers also opposed switching 

entirely to LED-based displays since it 

could make it harder for them to 

differentiate their products, particularly 

in a market as commoditized as 

microwave ovens. Lastly, manufacturers 

noted that larger, more complex, and 

more colorful displays are usually 

associated with premium appliances, 

which will have a harder time achieving 

the same standby power consumption as 

units with smaller, dimmer, and simpler 

displays. 

The current rulemaking does not seek 

to regulate the standby power 

consumption of conventional cooking 

appliances, and microwave ovens do 

not feature high surface temperatures 

and can incorporate one of many 

display options, as noted in the DOE 

sample. In addition, not all high-end 

appliance manufacturers use the same 

display technology across all cooking 

appliances that they manufacture. For 

example, at least one manufacturer uses 

a backlit LCD in its microwave oven, 

with the backlighting LEDs colorcoordinated with the VFDs found in its 

ovens. DOE believes that the consumer 

utility of a microwave oven display is 

its brightness, viewing angle, and ability 

to display complex characters, and that 

this utility can be achieved by several 

display technologies. Therefore, in 

determining standby power levels, DOE 

will consider each of these display 

technologies and their respective power 

requirements. 

c. Power Supply and Control Board 

Options 

Another potential area for standby 

power improvements is the power 

supplies on the control board. Multiple 

improvement paths with varying risk to 

manufacturers are available, including 

the selective upgrading of power supply 

components to boost efficiency, the 

reduction of peak power demand 

through the use of lower-power 

components, and the transition to 

switching power supplies. 

Power supply topology experts that 

DOE consulted noted that the quality of 

the transformer core material, types of 

diodes, capacitor quality, and voltage 

regulator selection could reduce no-load 

standby power for the power supply by 

half and boost conversion efficiency 

from 55 to 70 percent. Switching power 

supplies offer the highest conversion 

efficiencies (up to 75 percent) and 

lowest no-load standby losses (0.2 W or 

less) though at a higher cost, higher part 

count, and greater complexity. However, 

switching power supplies are as yet 

unproven in long-term microwave oven 

applications, and the greater complexity 

of these power supplies may also lower 

overall reliability. For more detail, see 

chapter 3 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice. 

There already are some premium 

microwave ovens on the U.S. market 

that incorporate switching power 

supplies. However, due to the 

incremental cost of such a power supply 

over a conventional power supply and 

the price competition in the microwave 

oven market, it is unlikely that 

switching power supplies will find 

wider application unless low standby 

power budgets force manufacturers to 

consider them. 

d. Power-Down Options 

Manufacturers could also meet very 

low (less than 1 W) standby power 

levels according to the EISA 2007 and 

IEC 62301 definitions of ‘‘standby 

mode’’ by incorporating an automatic 

function that turns off most powerconsuming components once a period of 

inactivity has elapsed. Such a lowconsumption state could be userselectable on demand, or could be the 

default condition in which the 

microwave oven is shipped such that 

the consumer would be required to opt 

into maintaining the display, cooking 

sensor, or other utility feature during 

standby. DOE has determined that some 

microwave oven suppliers to the U.S. 

market have already taken such 

approaches to meet prescriptive standby 

power standards in other markets such 

as Japan. Therefore, DOE analyzed how 

the consumer utility of a microwave 

oven is influenced by this design 

option. A large number of microwave 

ovens in the Japanese market implement 

this feature, according to DOE 

discussions with the Japanese Electrical 

Manufacturers’ Association. 

As outlined in the cooking sensor 

discussion (see section IV.B.1 of this 

notice), the Joint Comment stated that if 

DOE fails to find suitable cooking or 

other sensors, at a minimum, DOE 

should evaluate (1) an auto power-down 

mode for cooking sensing devices that is 

consumer programmable and (2) 

requirements that microwave ovens be 

shipped with the cooking sensor 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62052 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

disabled. (Joint Comment, No. 29 at p. 

8) 

DOE determined that control 

strategies are available that allow 

manufacturers to make design tradeoffs 

between incorporating standby-powerconsuming features such as displays or 

cooking sensors and including a 

function to turn power off to these 

components during standby. 

2. Commercial Clothes Washers 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the technology assessment for CCWs 

other than those discussed previously in 

section III.C.1. Therefore, DOE retained 

all of the CCW design options listed in 

the November 2007 ANOPR for the 

engineering analysis. (For further 

information, see chapter 3 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice.) 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to characterize the 

relationship between the efficiency (or 

annual energy use) and cost of the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. DOE used this efficiency/ 

cost relationship as input to the payback 

period, LCC, and national impact 

analyses. To generate manufacturing 

costs, DOE has identified three basic 

methodologies: (1) The design-option 

approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of adding to a baseline 

model’s design options that will 

improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiencylevel approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of moving to higher 

energy efficiency levels, without regard 

to the particular design option(s) used to 

achieve such increases; and (3) the costassessment (or reverse-engineering) 

approach, which provides ‘‘bottom-up’’ 

manufacturing cost assessments for 

achieving various levels of increased 

efficiency, based on detailed data on 

costs for parts and material, labor, 

shipping/packaging, and investment for 

models that operate at particular 

efficiency levels. 

DOE conducted the engineering 

analysis for this rulemaking using 

different methods for each of the 

covered products. For cooking products, 

DOE selected the design-option 

approach, because efficiency ratings of 

products on the market are not reported; 

therefore, the engineering analysis for 

cooking products was based upon an 

update to the analysis contained in the 

1996 TSD. For CCWs, published 

efficiency data allowed the use of an 

efficiency-level approach. DOE 

supplemented both approaches with 

data gained through reverse-engineering 

analysis and primary and secondary 

research, as appropriate. Details of the 

engineering analysis are in the TSD 

accompanying this notice (see chapter 

5). 

1. Efficiency Levels 

a. Cooking Products 

For cooking products, DOE reviewed 

and updated the design options and 

efficiency levels published in the 1996 

TSD analysis, as generally supported by 

stakeholders. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding omitted cooking 

technologies and will retain all the 

cooking technologies and design options 

identified in the November 2007 

ANOPR. (See chapter 3 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice.) 

Microwave Oven Cooking Efficiency. 

To identify microwave oven design 

options, DOE performed a reverseengineering analysis on a representative 

sample of microwave ovens. DOE did 

not find any additional design options 

beyond those identified in the 

November 2007 ANOPR. DOE also 

performed efficiency testing on the 

sample of microwave ovens, which 

validated data submitted by AHAM 

(reproduced in appendix 5–A of the 

TSD accompanying this notice). Results 

from both AHAM and DOE efficiency 

testing showed no identifiable 

correlation between cooking efficiency 

and either cavity volume or rated output 

power. DOE’s reverse-engineering 

analysis included an evaluation of 

microwave oven magnetrons, magnetron 

power supplies, and fan motors 

(identified as design options in the 

TSD). This evaluation determined that 

efficiencies for these design options 

have changed little since the 1996 

analysis. Therefore, DOE believes that 

this supplementary analysis validates 

the efficiency levels that were presented 

in the November 2007 ANOPR. For 

more detail, see chapter 5 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

Microwave Oven Standby Power. DOE 

is considering a maximum average 

standby power, in W, for microwave 

ovens. DOE’s analysis estimates the 

incremental manufacturing cost for 

microwave ovens with standby power 

levels below the baseline standby power 

level of 4 W. For the purposes of this 

standby power analysis, a baseline 

microwave oven is considered to 

incorporate an absolute humidity 

cooking sensor. 

To analyze the cost-efficiency 

relationship for microwave oven 

standby, DOE defined standby power 

levels expressed as a maximum average 

standby power, in W. To analyze the 

impacts of standards, DOE defined the 

following four standby levels for 

analysis: The FEMP procurement 

efficiency recommendation; the IEA 

One-Watt level; a standby power level 

as a gap-fill between the FEMP 

Procurement Efficiency 

Recommendation and IEA One-Watt 

Program levels; and the current 

maximum microwave oven standby 

technology (i.e., lowest standby power) 

that DOE believes is or could be 

commercially available when the energy 

conservation standards become 

effective, based on a review of 

microwave ovens currently on the 

market worldwide. Table IV.1 provides 

the microwave oven standby levels and 

the reference source for each level that 

DOE has analyzed. For more details on 

the determination of standby power 

levels, see chapter 5 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

TABLE IV.1—STANDBY POWER LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

Standby level Standby level source Standby power 

(W) 

Baseline ............ Baseline ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 .0 

1 ........................ FEMP Procurement Efficiency Recommendation ............................................................................................. 2 .0 

2 ........................ Gap Fill ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 .5 

3 ........................ IEA 1-Watt Program ........................................................................................................................................... 1 .0 

4 ........................ Max-Tech ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 .02 

The Joint Comment stated that 

opportunities exist for reducing standby 

power without affecting consumer 

utility. The Joint Comment noted that, 

for the microwave ovens listed in the 

FEMP procurement database, 50 percent 

of the models with both a clock display 

and a cooking sensor have a standby 

demand of between 2.1 and 3.0 W, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62053 

28This information, available at http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/ 

excel_based_files/Clothes_Washers/, was accessed 

on April 29, 2008. 

implying that a baseline standby 

demand could be reduced to 3.0 W and 

probably less without threat of 

reduction of consumer utility. (Joint 

Comment, No. 29 at pp. 6–8) 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

The efficiency levels for CCWs are 

defined by two factors normalized by 

wash basket volume—MEF and WF. 

These two variables are only directly 

related to each other via the average hot 

water usage by a clothes washer as 

measured by the DOE test procedure. 

Other measured parameters affect only 

one variable or the other. For example, 

cold water consumption only affects the 

WF, while remaining moisture content 

(RMC) only affects the MEF. (See 

chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice for further explanation.) Based on 

comments and the determination at that 

time to consider a single product class 

for CCWs, DOE selected potential 

efficiency levels for the November 2007 

ANOPR that were based on current 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

ENERGY STAR and CEE Commercial 

Clothes Washer Initiative criteria, and 

specifications for CCWs currently on the 

market. DOE sought comment on 

whether efficiency level 5 (2.0 MEF/5.5 

WF, which corresponds to efficiency 

level 2 for front-loading CCWs in the 

current analysis) should be changed to 

allow for manufacturer cost 

differentiation above and below this 

level. 

Alliance stated that the only reason to 

adjust CCW energy and water 

consumption at the 2.0 MEF/5.5 WF 

level would be to allow inclusion of 

other manufacturers (since Alliance 

already produces units at this level) and 

to allow manufacturers to add water 

through additional rinses. The latter 

would address rinsing issues prevalent 

in front-loading machines but would 

consume more energy in the motor. 

Alliance stated that it could support 

adjusting the 2.0 MEF/5.5 WF level to 

be less stringent and more flexible in 

meeting consumer demands for cleaning 

and rinsing performance, as well as to 

allow the inclusion of existing 

manufacturer designs that would 

obviate the need for incurring additional 

investment. (Alliance, No. 26 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that, based on the entries in 

the CEC, CEE, and ENERGY STAR 

databases, CCWs from several 

manufacturers can attain 2.0 MEF/5.5 

WF for both institutional and noninstitutional use. For example, two 

other manufacturers produce noninstitutional front-loading CCWs that 

achieve energy and water efficiency 

levels of 2.13 MEF/5.03 WF and 1.99 

MEF/6.8 WF, respectively. Alliance and 

one of its competitors could thus add 

water to their CCW cycle, whereas the 

third competitor would have to reduce 

water consumption to meet the 5.5 WF 

standard with its current model that 

nearly meets the 2.0 MEF efficiency 

level. 

Based upon the determination of two 

product classes for CCWs (see section 

IV.A.2), DOE subsequently revised the 

efficiency levels presented in the 

November 2007 ANOPR to characterize 

top-loading and front-loading CCWs 

separately. Accordingly, DOE 

considered the efficiency levels 

subsequently presented in Table IV.3, 

which were derived from current 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

ENERGY STAR and CEE Commercial 

Clothes Washer Initiative criteria and 

databases of currently available models, 

and entries in the CEC database. DOE 

seeks comment on these revised 

efficiency levels. 

DOE also sought comment on the 

max-tech efficiency level defined for the 

single product class in the November 

2007 ANOPR. DOE noted that some 

CCWs on the market have MEFs or WFs 

that exceed the CCW max-tech 

efficiency level for one measure, but not 

both. For example, one CCW on the 

market at the time of the November 

2007 ANOPR (2.45 MEF/9.5 WF) had a 

max-tech MEF performance but a 

baseline WF performance.28 DOE did 

not receive comment on which frontloading CCWs best represent max-tech, 

and why. Stakeholder comments 

discussed in the November 2007 

ANOPR indicated that a high MEF and 

low WF are not necessarily correlated, 

and, thus, a max-tech level based on the 

highest MEF and lowest WF is not 

realistic. 72 FR 64432, 64465 (Nov. 15, 

2008). As discussed in section III.C.2.b, 

DOE agreed with these comments, and 

selected top-loading and front-loading 

CCWs currently available on the market 

that exhibit a balance of high MEF and 

low WF to represent max-tech for each 

product class. 

For top-loading CCWs, no max-tech 

level was defined in the November 2007 

ANOPR because the analysis was 

structured as a single product class, and, 

generally, top-loading machines cannot 

achieve as high an efficiency level as 

front-loading machines. Based on 

market surveys of currently available 

models, DOE proposes in this notice a 

max-tech level of (1.76 MEF/8.3 WF) for 

top-loading CCWs. For front-loading 

CCWs, DOE considered the max-tech 

level proposed in the November 2007 

ANOPR for the single product class, 

since all CCWs at such high efficiencies 

are front-loading. However, because 

new model introductions and 

discontinuations have occurred since 

the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE has 

determined a new max-tech level for 

front-loading CCWs as well, which is 

higher in efficiency than the max-tech 

level proposed in the November 2007 

ANOPR (2.2 MEF/5.1 WF). The new 

max-tech level for front-loading 

machines is (2.35 MEF/4.4 WF), based 

on a currently available CCW. These 

units were selected after an extensive 

market survey, and DOE’s research 

suggests that their combination of high 

MEF and low WF represent the best-inclass balance between MEF and WF for 

the two product classes of CCWs. These 

max-tech levels were also the basis for 

all MIA incremental cost data developed 

in DOE’s analysis. DOE seeks comment 

on the determination of the max-tech 

efficiency levels for top-loading and 

front-loading CCWs. 

2. Manufacturing Costs 

DOE estimates a manufacturing cost 

for products at each efficiency level in 

this rulemaking. These manufacturing 

costs are the basis of inputs for a 

number of other analyses, including the 

LCC, national impact, and the GRIM 

analyses. 

The Joint Comment made the 

following three cross-cutting comments 

about manufacturing costs spanning the 

product families that this rulemaking 

could affect: 

• Rather than rely primarily on 

manufacturer average cost data, DOE 

should give greatest weight in its 

analysis to cost data determined through 

its reverse-engineering analyses, which 

have a better track record of estimating 

actual costs. 

• When using manufacturer data, 

DOE should use the minimum cost data 

submitted, rather than the average cost 

data. Minimum data are appropriate 

because the low-cost manufacturer will 

determine prices in a market at 

equilibrium. If one manufacturer has 

found a cheaper way to make a product, 

others will follow if they wish to 

compete in the price-sensitive portion of 

the marketplace. 

• Once a new standard is 

promulgated, producers have a strong 

incentive to invest in new engineering 

solutions and production capacity that 

will enable them to comply at the 

lowest possible cost. (Joint Comment, 

No. 29 at p. 13) 

DOE agrees with the first point of the 

Joint Comment that reverse-engineering 

provides valuable information in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62054 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

29Late introductions of high-efficiency models 

did not allow for extensive reverse engineering due 

to the rulemaking schedule. 

determining manufacturing cost, and 

DOE notes that, in addition to 

considering the manufacturer-submitted 

cost data, it conducts reverseengineering analysis and teardowns to 

the extent practicable. DOE also 

considers sales census data combined 

with a markup data to reflect all the 

steps in the distribution chain, as well 

as previous TSD cost data, updated to 

reflect current manufacturing costs. 

DOE has used all the listed approaches 

as part of this rulemaking, although the 

precise approach varied by product. 

In response to the Joint Comment’s 

second point, DOE does not believe that 

it has been demonstrated that the lowcost manufacturer will determine the 

prices in a market at equilibrium, nor 

that a low-cost manufacturer will 

correspond to low-cost products on the 

market. There may be relatively 

complex, low-cost machines that are not 

necessarily produced by the low-cost 

manufacturer. There may also be 

features, including quality, that are 

indicative of higher-cost units that the 

marketplace demands. Therefore, DOE 

continues to use shipment-weighted 

average cost data in its analyses because 

it believes that such costs are the most 

reflective of the manufacturing costs 

that industry incurs. DOE notes that 

many appliances with nominally similar 

functions sell at a range of price points. 

Such differentiation may be the result of 

features that may not be efficiencyrelated but may provide consumer 

utility. Through its shipments-weighted 

average costing process, DOE believes 

that the rulemaking will factor in 

continuing product differentiation, 

since it best reflects the actual state of 

the industry and the preferences by 

consumers. This shipment-weighted 

approach is also consistent with the 

data submitted by stakeholders, 

allowing direct comparisons between 

DOE analyses such as the reverse 

engineering and the data submittals. 

In considering the Joint Comment’s 

third point, DOE recognizes that it may 

well be true that a change in energy 

conservation standards is an 

opportunity for manufacturers to make 

investments beyond what would be 

required to meet the new standards in 

order to minimize the costs or to 

respond to other factors. For example, a 

product could be re-engineered to take 

out cost (e.g., reduce the number of 

parts); capital investments could be 

made to remove labor costs (e.g., 

automate production); or production 

could be moved to lower-cost areas. 

However, these are individual company 

decisions, and it is impossible for DOE 

to forecast and analyze such 

investments. DOE does not know of any 

data that provide it with the capability 

of determining what precise course a 

manufacturer will take. Furthermore, 

while manufacturers have been able to 

take costs out of products to meet 

previous energy conservation standards, 

there are no data to suggest that there 

are any further costs to take out. 

Regarding capital investments, DOE 

assumes that the existing manufacturing 

processes remain the same. If capital 

investments are expected to be made, 

DOE requires data demonstrating this in 

order to include in the MIA and the 

employment impact analysis. Similarly, 

because the potential for moving 

production is unknown to DOE, data 

must be provided for analysis. 

Cooking Products. The Joint Comment 

suggested that DOE should collect 

energy and cost data for ovens for 

individual features such as low-power 

electronic controls, clock faces, and 

other standby load features. If industry 

cannot provide compelling cost data, 

the Joint Comment suggested that DOE 

should model it as a zero-cost design 

option. (Joint Comment, No. 29 at p. 6; 

ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23.7 at p. 62) Regarding microwave oven 

costs, Whirlpool supported the 

approach of using the Producer Price 

Index (PPI) to update design options 

identified in the prior rulemaking, and 

stated that it is unaware of meaningful 

new design options to recommend to 

DOE. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 5) 

DOE contacted original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) suppliers and 

manufacturers to better understand the 

costs associated with various microwave 

oven components such as displays, 

power supplies, and magnetrons. 

Suppliers and manufacturers agreed that 

many lower-power, higher-efficiency 

components cost more to implement. 

For example, a switching power supply 

has more, and higher cost, components 

than a standard unregulated power 

supply. Similarly, increases in raw 

material prices have affected the 

cooking efficiency design options that 

DOE had identified in this and past 

analyses. Because no industry cost data 

were provided, DOE scaled the costs 

associated with each cooking efficiency 

design option from the 1996 TSD by the 

PPI. Because DOE proposes a 

microwave oven standby power 

standard, DOE developed 

manufacturing costs related to improved 

standby performance by estimating costs 

of published power supply designs and 

components, referencing subject-matter 

experts, and interviewing manufacturers 

that use such components. 

Commercial Clothes Washers. For 

CCWs, AHAM supplied industryaggregated manufacturing cost data for 

the November 2007 ANOPR analyses at 

two efficiency levels, which correspond 

to efficiency level 1 for top-loading 

CCWs and efficiency level 2 for frontloading CCWs. DOE updated these costs 

following the November 2007 ANOPR to 

include additional efficiency levels for 

each product class, based on 

manufacturer-supplied data and DOE 

analysis. DOE undertook a limited 

reverse-engineering approach to costing 

out the different efficiency points.29 In 

addition, DOE relied on interviews with 

manufacturers, knowledge of the clothes 

washer market through previous 

rulemakings, ENERGY STAR, and other 

activities. DOE believes that the updated 

cost-efficiency curves reflect costs that 

clothes washer manufacturers are likely 

to experience. 

The following discussion addresses 

specific issues raised in response to the 

November 2007 ANOPR. 

a. Cooking Products 

Electronic Ignition Systems. In the 

November 2007 ANOPR, DOE identified 

electronic ignition systems as a design 

option that can be used instead of 

standing pilot lights to light gas-fired 

cooking appliances. DOE estimated 

incremental manufacturing costs of 

electronic ignition systems by scaling 

the manufacturing costs that were 

provided in the 1996 TSD by the PPI. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

that electronic ignition systems were an 

inappropriate design option to consider 

for this rulemaking. However, AGA 

commented that DOE underestimated 

the incremental manufacturing cost of 

electronic ignition for gas cooking 

products. According to AGA, the 

Harper-Wyman Co. provided an 

incremental retail price of $150 for a gas 

range with electronic ignition relative to 

a range with standing pilot ignition 

system in 1998 comments to DOE. This 

retail price increment stands in sharp 

contrast to the $37 incremental 

manufacturing cost estimated by DOE. 

(AGA, No. 27 at p. 13) 

In response to AGA’s comments, DOE 

contacted component suppliers of gas 

cooking product ignition systems to 

validate DOE’s manufacturing cost 

estimates in the November 2007 

ANOPR. DOE believes that the 

information collected verifies that the 

costs in the November 2007 ANOPR 

represent current costs and, therefore, 

will continue to characterize the 

incremental manufacturing costs for the 

non-standing pilot ignition systems with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62055 

30 In order to avoid anti-competitive effects, 

AHAM is limited to publishing aggregated data by 

efficiency levels for which at least three AHAM 

members have submitted cost-efficiency data. 

AHAM weights the submission by unit shipments 

for each manufacturer to reflect current market 

conditions and to maintain confidentiality. 

the estimates developed for the 

November 2007 ANOPR. 

Microwave Oven Standby Power. For 

microwave ovens, DOE estimates a costefficiency relationship (or ‘‘curve’’) for 

microwave oven standby power in the 

form of the incremental manufacturing 

costs associated with incremental 

reductions in baseline standby power. 

As part of the November 2007 ANOPR 

analysis, DOE tested and tore down 32 

microwave ovens and determined that 

microwave oven standby power 

depends on, among other factors, the 

display technology used, the associated 

power supplies and controllers, and the 

presence or lack of a cooking sensor. 

The results and discussion of standby 

testing along with standby power data 

submitted by AHAM can be found in 

chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice. From this testing and reverseengineering, DOE observed correlations 

between specific components and 

technologies, or combinations thereof, 

and measured standby power. 

DOE estimated costs for each of 

component and technology by using 

quotes obtained from suppliers, 

interviews with manufacturers, 

interviews with subject matter experts, 

research and literature review, and 

numerical modeling. DOE obtained 

preliminary incremental manufacturing 

costs associated with the standby levels 

by considering combinations of these 

components as well as other technology 

options identified to reduce standby 

power. DOE also conducted 

manufacturer interviews to obtain 

greater insight into the design strategies 

to improve efficiency and the associated 

costs. 

Table IV.2 shows microwave oven 

standby power preliminary costefficiency results. Based upon DOE’s 

research, interviews with subject matter 

experts, and discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE believes that all 

consumer utility (i.e., display, cooking 

sensor, etc.) can be maintained by 

standby levels down to standby level 3 

(1.0 W). At the max-tech level, DOE 

would expect the implementation of an 

auto power-down feature that would, 

among other things, shut off the display 

after a period of inactivity, potentially 

impacting consumer utility. For the 

detailed cost-efficiency analysis, 

including descriptions of design options 

and design changes to meet standby 

levels, see chapter 5 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

TABLE IV.2—INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS FOR MICROWAVE

OVEN STANDBY POWER

Standby level Incremental 

cost 

Baseline ................................ NA 

1 ............................................ $ 0.30 

2 ............................................ $ 0.67 

3 ............................................ $ 1.47 

4 ............................................ $ 5.13 

DOE observed several different 

cooking sensor technologies in its 

sample of 32 microwave ovens. Followon testing after the December 2007 

public meeting showed that some of 

these sensors are zero-standby (relative 

humidity) cooking sensors. One 

manufacturer also indicated during its 

MIA interview that its supplier of 

cooking sensors had developed zerostandby absolute humidity cooking 

sensors and that these sensors would 

have the same manufacturing cost as the 

higher-standby power devices they 

would replace. Based on the number of 

zero-standby cooking sensor approaches 

from which manufacturers can choose, 

DOE believes that all manufacturers can 

and likely will implement zero-standby 

cooking sensors by the effective date of 

a standby power standard, and maintain 

the consumer utility of a cooking sensor 

without affecting unit cost. 

DOE believes that a standard at 

standby levels 1 or 2 would not affect 

consumer utility, because all display 

types could continue to be used. For 

these two levels, better power supplies 

should allow the continued use of any 

display that DOE found in its sample of 

32 units. At standby level 3 for VFDs 

and standby level 4 for all display 

technologies, DOE analysis suggests the 

need for a separate controller (auto 

power-down) that automatically turns 

off all other power-consuming 

components during standby mode. Such 

a feature would impact the consumer 

utility of having a clock display only if 

the consumer could not opt out of auto 

power-down. For the detailed costefficiency analysis, including 

descriptions of design options and 

design changes to meet standby levels, 

see chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

The CCW industry currently has only 

three major manufacturers (i.e., with 

more than one percent market share), 

and a limited number of CCWs models 

are available for purchase. As a result, 

only a few models are available for 

purchase at a given efficiency point, 

thereby restricting the amount of data 

that AHAM could submit.30

Accordingly, AHAM submitted two 

manufacturing cost estimates: (1) $74.63 

at (1.42 MEF/9.5 WF), and (2) $316.35 

at (2.00 MEF/5.5 WF.) These are 

incremental costs over a baseline toploading CCW. Without additional data, 

and based on preliminary manufacturer 

inputs, DOE, in the November 2007 

ANOPR, adopted a cost-efficiency curve 

where all efficiency levels at or above 

(1.60 MEF/8.5 WF) incorporated the 

same manufacturing cost published for 

(2.00 MEF/5.5 WF.) DOE sought 

stakeholders’ comment on how to refine 

the cost curve to better reflect shipmentweighted manufacturing costs by 

efficiency level. 72 FR 64432, 64513 

(Nov. 15, 2007). 

In comments on the ANOPR, 

Whirlpool, Alliance, and AHAM stated 

that it was not reasonable to assume that 

all CCWs achieving (1.60MEF/8.5 WF) 

through (2.20 MEF/5.1 WF) would have 

the same costs. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 

4–5, Alliance, No. 26 at p. 2 and AHAM, 

No. 32 at p. 10) For example, Whirlpool 

stated that step functions generally exist 

in product cost as efficiency increases, 

and that the cost differences between 

these steps are significant, whereas the 

cost differences within the steps are less 

significant. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 4– 

5) In other words, certain efficiency 

levels can only be reached using certain 

technology options. In the case of 

CCWs, there is a point beyond which 

standard top-loading CCWs with 

agitators can no longer be used and a 

switch has to be made to higherefficiency platforms. Whereas the run 

up to the switch may be gradual in 

terms of design changes, a switch to a 

higher-efficiency platform such as a 

front-loading CCW usually entails a 

significant jump in product cost, which 

appears as a step function. Whirlpool 

noted that DOE has identified the steps 

for CCWs as traditional top-load and 

front-load units. According to 

Whirlpool, DOE’s analysis does not 

include the possibility of a highefficiency top-load CCW. Further, 

Whirlpool stated that, although such a 

machine is not in the market today, the 

company’s experience in building 

residential high-efficiency top-load 

clothes washers could be translated into 

the development of a high-efficiency 

top-load CCW. Such a machine could 

likely perform at CCW efficiency levels 

(1.72 MEF/8.0 WF), (1.80 MEF/7.5 WF), 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62056 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

and (2.00 MEF/5.5 WF). (Whirlpool, No. 

28 at pp. 4–5) 

Although AHAM is unable to provide 

cost information at levels other than 

(1.42 MEF/9.5 WF) and (2.0 MEF/5.5 

WF) while maintaining the 

confidentiality of its members, it 

recommended that DOE either approach 

CCW manufacturers directly or evaluate 

the cost differentials between residential 

front-loading units and verify with 

manufacturers that application of these 

costs and design options are realistic for 

CCWs. (AHAM, No. 32 at p. 10) In 

response, DOE contacted all CCW 

manufacturers and constructed its own 

estimate of the manufacturer cost curve 

by efficiency level. 

Alliance produces both top-loading 

and front-loading CCWs. Alliance stated 

that a low-cost alternative to frontloading CCWs for efficiency levels 

above 1.42 MEF would use existing, 

non-traditional technologies that are 

proprietary and have been shown not to 

be accepted in the residential market, 

and thus would never be accepted in the 

commercial market. According to 

Alliance, the reason for a constant 

incremental CCW manufacturing cost at 

MEF = 1.6 and above is that Alliance 

cannot afford to invest in any new 

technology in that range, because they 

already have a washer at the higher 

(2.00 MEF/5.5 WF) efficiency level. 

(Alliance, No. 26 at p. 2) DOE noted the 

new listing of a traditional top-loading 

CCW in December 2007 that achieves 

(1.76 MEF/8.3 WF), well beyond the 

limits that Alliance stated could be 

achieved. However, market acceptance 

of the new unit is unknown and similar 

washers incorporating spray rinse 

technology have been previously 

withdrawn from the CCW market due to 

consumer acceptance issues. 

DOE is sensitive to the unique 

position of the low volume 

manufacturer (LVM) in the marketplace, 

as its low manufacturing scale makes 

product development and capital 

expenditure investments that much 

harder to justify. Unlike its diversified 

competitors, the LVM services the 

comparatively small (i.e. 45× smaller) 

CCW market almost exclusively. 

Whereas its competitors can develop 

new technologies for use in the CCW 

market as well as the much larger RCW 

market, the LVM has to depreciate its 

investments over a much smaller 

production range. As a result of its 

concentration on commercial laundry 

and its low manufacturing scale, the 

LVM will be disproportionately affected 

by any CCW rulemaking compared to its 

competitors who derive less than two 

percent of their clothes washer revenues 

from CCW sales. DOE research to date 

suggests that a wholesale conversion of 

the LVM production facility to a lowercost front-loading washer is not costjustified. Thus, a consumer boycott of 

higher-efficiency but traditional toploading clothes washers due to wash 

performance issues could be just as 

effective at ending top-loading CCW 

production as a single product class 

designation requiring the use of frontloading washers. The LVM has stated 

that if it were required to convert its 

production facility to front-loading 

production that it would likely suffer 

material harm and exit the clothes 

washer business altogether. 

The Joint Comment argued that 

Alliance has a dominant CCW market 

share and can thus make the kinds of 

investments that are required to meet 

applicable efficiency standards. The 

Joint Comment also stated that 

Alliance’s competitors would be forced 

to recover their efficiency-related 

investments over a smaller shipment 

base, and that their investments in 

CCWs could not be distributed over the 

cost-competitive RCW market as well. 

(Joint Comment, No. 29 at p. 3) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

notes that most CCWs on the market in 

the United States are based largely on 

RCW platforms that are upgraded 

selectively. Some investments (such as 

the controllers) are CCW-specific but 

only make up part of the total unit cost. 

The majority of capital expenditures 

related to tooling, equipment, and other 

machinery in a plant can usually be 

applied to the residential as well as the 

commercial market. Thus, overall (RCW 

+ CCW) manufacturing scale has a 

significant impact on the costeffectiveness of potential upgrades. A 

manufacturer with a high-volume 

residential line can cost-justify much 

more capital-intensive solutions if they 

are applicable in both markets, in 

contrast to a low-volume manufacturer 

that lacks the scale to make the 

investments worthwhile. Thus, a lowvolume manufacturer may be required 

to purchase upgrade options from thirdparty vendors to upgrade their units 

instead of developing less expensive, 

but capital-intensive, in-house 

solutions. In the clothes washer market, 

the most direct CCW competitor has 

over 60 times the overall shipment 

volumes of the LVM. This scale 

difference also relates to purchasing 

power. A large, diversified appliance 

manufacturer can use its production 

scale to achieve better prices for raw 

materials and commonly purchased 

components like controllers, motors, 

belts, switches, sensors, and wiring 

harnesses. Even if a large company 

purchases fewer items of a certain 

component, its overall revenue 

relationship with a supplier may still 

enable it to achieve better pricing than 

a smaller competitor can, even if that 

competitor buys certain components in 

higher quantities. Lastly, high-volume 

manufacturers benefit from being able to 

source their components through 

sophisticated supply chains on a 

worldwide basis. A low-volume 

manufacturer is unlikely to be able to 

compete solely on manufacturing cost. 

Based on the comments, DOE 

reviewed the November 2007 ANOPR 

CCW manufacturing cost information 

and interviewed CCW manufacturers 

representing nearly 100 percent of U.S. 

sales to discuss, among other things, the 

cost-efficiency curve. (See section 

IV.H.6.b of this notice and appendix 5– 

B of the TSD for further detail.) Based 

on this review and the information 

gathered, DOE modified the costefficiency curve based on detailed CCW 

manufacturer feedback, aggregating the 

responses by unit shipments to ensure 

confidentiality. Table IV.3 shows the 

updated cost-efficiency data. 

TABLE IV.3 INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Efficiency level 

Modified energy factor/water factor Incremental cost 

Top-loading Front-loading Top-loading Front-loading 

Baseline ................................................................................... 1.26/9.5 1.72/8.0 $0.00 $0.00 

1 ............................................................................................... 1.42/9.5 1.8/7.5 $74.63 $0.00 

2 ............................................................................................... 1.6/8.5 2.0/5.5 $129.83 $13.67 

3 ............................................................................................... 1.76/8.3 2.2/5.1 $144.43 $37.84

4 ............................................................................................... N/A 2.35/4.4 N/A $63.63 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62057 

31U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey, 2001 Public Use Data Files (2001). 

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ 

recs2001/publicuse2001.html. 

32U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Commercial Buiilding Energy 

Consumption Survey, 2003 Public Use Data Files 

(2003). Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ 

cbecs/cbecs2003/public_use_2003/cbecs_

pudata2003.html. 

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts of possible amended energy 

conservation standards for the two 

appliance products, on individual 

consumers for the cooking products and 

commercial consumers for CCWs. (See 

the TSD accompanying this notice, 

chapter 8.) The LCC is the total 

consumer expense over the life of the 

appliance, including purchase and 

installation expense and operating costs 

(energy expenditures and maintenance 

costs). To compute LCCs, DOE 

discounted future operating costs to the 

time of purchase and summed them 

over the lifetime of the appliance. The 

PBP is the change in purchase expense 

as a result of an increased efficiency 

standard, divided by the change in 

annual operating cost that results from 

the standard. Otherwise stated, the PBP 

is the number of years it would take for 

the consumer to recover the increased 

costs of a higher efficiency product 

through energy savings. 

DOE measures the change in LCC and 

the change in PBP associated with a 

given efficiency level relative to an 

estimate of base-case appliance 

efficiency. The base-case estimate 

reflects the market in the absence of 

amended mandatory energy 

conservation standards, including the 

demand for products that exceed the 

current energy conservation standards. 

Section IV.E.9 discusses the estimate of 

base-case efficiency in detail. 

For cooking products, DOE calculated 

the LCC and payback periods for a 

nationally representative set of housing 

units, which were selected from EIA’s 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS). Similar to the November 2007 

ANOPR, today’s proposed rule for 

residential cooking products continues 

to use the 2001 RECS.31 EIA had not yet 

released the 2005 RECS when the 

analysis was performed. For each 

sampled household, DOE determined 

the energy consumption and energy 

price for the cooking product. Thus, by 

using a representative sample of 

households, the analysis captured the 

wide variability in energy consumption 

and energy prices associated with 

cooking product use. The Department 

determined the LCCs and payback 

periods for each sampled household 

using the cooking product’s unique 

energy use and energy price, as well as 

other input variables. The Department 

calculated the LCC associated with the 

baseline cooking product in each 

household. To calculate the LCC savings 

and payback period associated with 

more efficient equipment (i.e., 

equipment meeting higher efficiency 

standards), DOE substituted the baseline 

unit with a more-efficient design. 

For CCWs, DOE was unable to 

develop a consumer sample because 

neither RECS nor EIA’s Commercial 

Building Energy Consumption Survey 32

(CBECS) provide the necessary data to 

develop one. As a result, DOE was not 

able to use a consumer sample to 

establish the variability in energy and 

water use and energy and water pricing. 

Instead, DOE established the variability 

and uncertainty in energy and water use 

by defining the uncertainty and 

variability in the use (cycles per day) of 

the equipment. The variability in energy 

and water pricing were characterized by 

regional differences in energy and water 

prices. 

Inputs for determining the total 

installed cost include equipment 

prices—which account for manufacturer 

costs, manufacturer markups, retailer or 

distributor markups, and sales taxes— 

and installation costs. Inputs for 

determining operating expenses include 

annual energy and water consumption, 

natural gas, electricity, and water prices, 

natural gas, electricity, and water price 

projections, repair and maintenance 

costs, equipment lifetime, discount 

rates, and the year that standards take 

effect. To account for uncertainty and 

variability in certain inputs, DOE 

created distributions of values with 

probabilities attached to each value. As 

described above, DOE characterized the 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices for residential cooking 

products by using household samples. 

For CCWs, DOE characterized the 

uncertainty and variability in 

equipment usage to capture the 

variability and uncertainly in energy 

and water consumption, whereas 

regional differences were used to 

capture the variability in energy and 

water pricing. For the installed cost 

inputs identified above, DOE 

characterized the sales taxes with 

probability distributions. For the other 

operating cost inputs, it characterized 

the discount rate and the equipment 

lifetime with distributions. 

The LCC and PBP model uses a Monte 

Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis when combined with Crystal 

Ball (a commercially available software 

program). The Monte Carlo simulations 

sampled input values randomly from 

the probability distributions (and the 

household samples for residential 

cooking products). The model 

calculated the LCC and PBP for each 

efficiency level for 10,000 housing units 

per simulation run. 

For both cooking products and CCWs, 

Table IV.4 summarizes the approach 

and data that DOE used to derive the 

inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations 

for the November 2007 ANOPR and the 

changes made for today’s proposed rule. 

The following sections discuss the 

inputs and the changes. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62058 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

33RS Means, Plumbing Cost Data (28th Annual 

Edition (2005). Available for purchase at: http:// 

www.rsmeans.com/bookstore/. 

34RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data (30th Annual 

Edition) (2008). Available for purchase at: http:// 

www.rsmeans.com/bookstore/. 

35Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/ 

rass/. 

36Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/. 

37Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.mla-online.com/. 

38Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.coinlaundry.org/. 

39Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.eia.doe.gov/. 

40Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.awwa.org/Bookstore/. 

41Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.bls.gov/. 

TABLE IV.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES

Inputs 2007 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Affecting Installed Costs 

Product Price ....................... Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by manufacturer, retailer (for residential cooking products) and 

distributor (for CCWs) markups and sales tax, as appropriate.

No change. 

Installation Cost ................... Cooking Products: Baseline cost based on RS Means 

Plumbing Cost Data, 2005.33 Estimated that 20 percent of households with gas cooktops and standard 

ovens that do not require electricity to operate would 

incur added costs for the installation of an electrical 

outlet to accommodate designs that require electricity 

(e.g., glo-bar or electronic spark ignition). Electrical 

outlet installation cost based on the type of cable, 

tubing and wire used, resulting in an average cost of 

$76. All other standard levels for all other product 

classes incur no additional installation costs.

Cooking Products: Baseline cost updated with RS 

Means Mechanical Cost Data, 2008.34 Revised the 

percent of households with gas cooking products that 

would need to install an electrical outlet. Based on 

requirements in the NEC, estimated that 10 percent 

of households with gas standard ovens and 4 percent of households with gas cooktops would need to 

install an electrical outlet to accommodate designs 

that require electricity. Updated electrical outlet installation costs based on requirements in the NEC. Revised cost of $235 based on the installation of 

ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI). 

CCWs: Baseline cost based on RS Means Plumbing 

Cost Data, 2005. No additional installation cost for all 

standard levels.

CCWs: Baseline cost updated with RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, 2008. 

Affecting Operating Costs 

Annual Energy and Water 

Use.

Cooking Products: Based on recent estimates from the 

2004 California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey 35 (RASS) and the Florida Solar Energy Center 36

(FSEC). Used 2001 RECS data to establish the variability of annual cooking energy consumption.

Cooking Products: No change with one exception— 

microwave oven standby power included. 

CCWs: Per-cycle energy and water use based on MEF 

and WF levels. Disaggregated into per-cycle machine, dryer, and water heating energy using data 

from DOE’s 2000 TSD for residential clothes washers. Annual energy and water use determined from 

the annual usage (number of use cycles). Usage 

based on several studies including research sponsored by the Multi-housing Laundry Association 37

(MLA) and the Coin Laundry Association 38 (CLA). 

Different use cycles determined for multi-family and 

laundromat product applications.

CCWs: No change. 

Energy and Water/Wastewater Prices.Electricity: Based on EIA’s 2005 Form 861 data. Natural Gas: Based on EIA’s 2005 Natural Gas Monthly.39 Water/Wastewater: Based on Raftelis Financial 

Consultants (RFC) and the American Water Works 

Association’s (AWWA) 2004 Water and Wastewater 

Survey.40 Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 regions; regional water/wastewater price 

determined for four regions.

Electricity: Updated using EIA’s 2006 Form 861 data. 

Natural Gas: Updated using EIA’s 2006 Natural Gas 

Monthly. Water/Wastewater: Updated using RFC/ 

AWWA’s 2006 Water and Wastewater Survey. Variability: No change. 

Energy and Water/Wastewater Price Trends.Energy: Forecasted with EIA’s AEO 2007. Water/ 

Wastewater: Forecasted with extrapolation from Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) national water price 

index from 1970 through 2005.41

Energy: Forecasts updated with EIA’s AEO 2008. 

Water/Wastewater: Forecasts updated with BLS 

index through 2007. 

Repair and Maintenance 

Costs.

Cooking Products: Estimated no change in costs for 

products more efficient than baseline products. 

Cooking Products: For gas cooktops and standard 

ovens, accounted for increased costs associated with 

glo-bar or electronic spark ignition systems relative to 

standing pilot ignition systems. For all standard levels 

for all other product classes, maintained no change 

in costs between products more efficient than baseline products. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62059 

42Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.appliancemagazine.com/. 

43Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.calmac.org/. 

44Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://www.federalreserve.gov. 

45Please see the following Web site for further 

information: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/ 

∼adamodar/. 46Available online at: http://www.aham.org. 

TABLE IV.4—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs 2007 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

CCWs: Estimated no change in costs for products more 

efficient than baseline products. 

CCWs: Estimated annualized repair costs for each efficiency level based on half the equipment lifetime divided by the equipment lifetime. 

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings 

Product Lifetime ................... Cooking Products: Based on data from Appliance Magazine,42 past DOE TSDs, and the California Measurement Advisory Committee (CALMAC).43 Variability 

and uncertainty characterized with uniform probability 

distributions. 

Cooking Products: No change with the exception that 

variability and uncertainty characterized with Weibull 

probability distributions. 

CCWs: Based on data from various sources including 

the CLA. Different lifetimes established for multi-family and laundromat product applications. Variability 

and uncertainty characterized with uniform probability 

distributions. 

CCWs: No change with the exception that variability 

and uncertainty characterized with Weibull probability 

distributions. 

Discount Rates ..................... Cooking Products: Approach based on the finance cost 

of raising funds to purchase appliances either 

through the financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase equipment, or the opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase equipment. Primary data 

source is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of 

Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 

1998, 2001, and 2004. 44

Cooking Products: No change. 

CCWs: Approach based on cost of capital of publicly 

traded firms in the sectors that purchase CCWs. Primary data source is Damodaran Online. 45

CCWs: No change. 

Affecting Installed and Operating Costs 

Effective Data of New 

Standard.

2012 ................................................................................ No change. 

Base-Case Efficiency Distributions.Gas cooktops: 7% at baseline; 93% with electronic 

spark ignition.

Gas cooktops: No change. 

Gas standard ovens: 18% at baseline; 82% with glo-bar 

ignition.

Gas standard ovens: 18% at baseline; 74% with glo-bar 

ignition; 8% with electronic spark ignition. 

Microwave ovens: 100% at baseline EF of 0.557. 

Standby power was not considered in the analysis.

Microwave ovens: 100% at baseline EF but accounted 

for product market shares at different standby power 

levels; 46% with standby power consumption of 

greater than 2.0 W; 35% with standby power consumption of greater than 1.5 W and less than or 

equal to 2.0 W; 19% with standby power consumption of greater than 1.0 W and less than or equal to 

1.5 W. 

All other cooking products: 100% at baseline ................ All other cooking products: No change. 

CCWs: Analyzed as single product class with 80% at 

baseline (1.26 MEF/9.5 WF); 20% at 2.00 MEF/5.50 

WF.

CCWs: Analyzed as two product classes: top-loading 

and front-loading. Distributions for both classes 

based on the number of available models at the efficiency levels. Top-Loading: 63.6% at 1.26 MEF/9.5 

WF; 33.3% at 1.42 MEF/9.5 WF; 0% at 1.60 MEF/8.5 

WF; 3.0% at 1.76 MEF/8.3 WF. Front-Loading: 7.4% 

at 1.72 MEF/8.0 WF; 4.4% at 1.80 MEF/7.5 WF; 

85.3% at 2.00 MEF/5.5 WF; 1.5% at 2.20 MEF/5.1 

WF; 1.5% at 2.35 MEF/4.4 WF. 

1. Product Price 

To calculate the consumer product 

prices, DOE multiplied the 

manufacturing costs developed from the 

engineering analysis by the supplychain markups it developed (along with 

sales taxes). To calculate the final, 

installed prices for baseline products, as 

well as higher efficiency products, DOE 

added the consumer product prices to 

the installation costs. 

a. Cooking Products 

For cooking products, DOE relied on 

data from AHAM’s 2003 Fact Book 46

showing that over 93 percent of 

residential appliances (including 

cooking products) are distributed from 

the manufacturer directly to a retailer. 

Therefore, DOE determined cooking 

product retail prices using markups 

based solely on the premise that these 

appliances are sold through a 

manufacturer-to-retailer distribution 

channel. Whirlpool commented that 

DOE should not focus solely on the 

retail distribution channel for its 

determination of retail prices. Whirlpool 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62060 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

47Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Commercial 

Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of 

the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (1998). This 

document is available at: http://www.cee1.org/com/ 

cwsh/cwsh-main.php3. 

48RS Means, Plumbing Cost Data (28th 

Edition)(2005) p. 97. Available for purchase at: 

http://www.rsmeans.com. 

49RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data (31st Annual 

Edition) (2008). Available for purchase at: http:// 

www.rsmeans.com. 

stated that the analysis and assumptions 

made for the retail distribution channel 

are reasonably accurate but completely 

ignore the contractor distribution 

channel. Whirlpool claimed that the 

contractor distribution channel 

comprises approximately 20 percent of 

total industry volume (not the seven 

percent cited in the November 2007 

ANOPR TSD), with a greater portion of 

cooking products flowing through this 

channel. Whirlpool said that larger new 

home builders and apartment 

management firms use the contractor 

channel, and that the margins and 

behavior of the parties in this channel 

differ from those in the retail channel. 

Whirlpool recommended that future 

rulemakings consider the contractor 

channel. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 12) 

DOE understands that the contractor 

distribution channel may distribute a 

significant portion of cooking product 

sales. However, since DOE’s analysis for 

rulemakings on other residential 

appliances indicates that overall 

markups in the contractor channel are 

on average similar to those in the 

retailer channel, DOE believes that it 

can reasonably assume that the retail 

prices determined from the 

manufacturer-to-retailer distribution 

channel for this standards rulemaking 

provide a good estimate for cooking 

product prices. 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

For CCWs, DOE developed the 

distribution channels based on data 

developed by the CEE.47 The CEE data 

indicate that the relevant portions of the 

commercial, family-sized clothes 

washer market can be divided into three 

areas: (1) Laundromats; (2) private 

multi-family housing; and (3) large 

institutions (e.g., military barracks, 

universities, housing authorities, 

lodging establishments, and health care 

facilities). For purposes of developing 

the markups for CCWs, DOE based its 

calculations on the distribution channel 

that involves only distributors, because 

it believed that this channel would 

provide good estimates of consumer 

prices for the entire market. In the 

November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

specifically sought comment on whether 

determining CCW consumer prices 

based solely on the distribution channel 

that includes distributors will result in 

representative equipment prices for all 

CCW consumers. AHAM, Alliance, and 

Whirlpool generally agreed with DOE’s 

approach of representing CCW 

equipment prices with data from the 

distributor channel only. (AHAM, No. 

32 at p. 11; Alliance, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 2 at p. 132; Whirlpool, 

No. 28 at p. 8) DOE did not receive any 

negative comments on this approach. As 

a result, DOE did not change its 

approach for determining CCW markups 

for today’s proposed rule. 

According to the Joint Comment, for 

relatively small changes in a standard 

level, as associated with many product 

rulemakings to date, the available 

literature shows that products just 

meeting an amended standard have 

often had no price change or even price 

declines after the adoption of the more 

stringent standards. The Joint Comment 

cited reports from the European Union 

suggesting that actual price impacts are 

lower than predicted in their most 

recent round of standards for several 

products. Possible explanations include 

manufacturing economies found as a 

result of re-engineering of products after 

a standards amendment and retailer 

pricing strategies that prevent passthrough of small manufacturer cost 

increases to the retail customer. The 

Joint Comment claimed that this issue is 

especially relevant to microwave ovens, 

because the manufacturing cost to 

reduce standby power is likely to be 

very low, but the principle also will be 

relevant for any standard that entails a 

small impact on manufacturing costs. 

The Joint Comment stated that DOE 

should review actual pricing for 

standards effective in recent years to 

calibrate the accuracy of DOE’s price 

predictions. In developing such a 

calibration, the Joint Comment stated 

that DOE must separate commodity 

price impacts (e.g., the cost of steel has 

increased sharply since 2001) from 

impacts associated with a new 

efficiency standard. (Joint Comment, 

No. 29 at pp. 9–10, 13–14) As described 

in section IV.C.2, Manufacturing Costs, 

DOE does not find merit to the Joint 

Comment’s claims that the price change 

of meeting an amended standard 

declines after the standards’ adoption. 

DOE recognizes that every change in 

minimum energy conservation 

standards is an opportunity for 

manufacturers to make investments 

beyond what would be required to meet 

the new standards in order to minimize 

the costs or to respond to other factors. 

DOE’s manufacturing cost estimates, 

MIA interviews, and the GRIM analysis 

seek to gauge the most likely industry 

response to proposed energy 

conservation standards. DOE’s analysis 

of responses must be based on currently 

available technology that will be nonproprietary when a rulemaking becomes 

effective, and thus cannot speculate on 

future product and market innovation. 

For more details on DOE’s response, see 

section IV.C.2. 

2. Installation Cost 

The installation cost is the consumer’s 

total cost to install the equipment, 

excluding the marked-up consumer 

equipment price. More specifically, 

installation costs include labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts. DOE determined 

baseline product installation costs for 

cooktops, ovens, and CCWs based on 

data from RS Means. For the November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE used data from the 

RS Means Plumbing Cost Data, 2005 to 

estimate installation costs for cooking 

products and CCWs.48 RS Means 

provides estimates on the labor required 

to install each of above three products. 

For today’s proposed rule, DOE updated 

its baseline installation costs using RS 

Means Mechanical Cost Data, 2008.49

a. Cooking Products 

For cooking products (except gas 

cooktops and standard ovens), DOE 

estimated that installation costs would 

not increase with product efficiency. 

For gas cooktops and standard ovens, 

DOE estimated the impact that 

eliminating standing pilot ignition 

systems would have on the installation 

cost. Specifically, DOE considered the 

percentage of households with gas 

ranges, cooktops, and ovens that would 

require the installation of an electrical 

outlet in the kitchen to accommodate a 

gas cooking product that would need 

electricity to operate, as well as the cost 

of installing an electrical outlet. 

DOE estimated for its November 2007 

ANOPR that an upper bound of 20 

percent of households using gas 

cooktops and standard ovens with 

standing pilot ignition systems would 

require the installation of an electrical 

outlet in the kitchen for a product that 

requires electricity. AGA commented 

that the percentage of consumers that 

would need to install an electrical outlet 

is much greater than 20 percent, and 

suggested that the vast majority of pilot 

ignition products shipped are for 

installations where rewiring would be 

required for a range without pilot 

ignition. AGA questioned DOE’s 

assumption that kitchens with existing 

electrical outlets would not require 

modification or installation of 

additional outlets, stating that State and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62061 

50 D.A. Dini, Some History of Residential Wiring 

Practices, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (2006). 

This document is available at: http://www.nfpa.org/ 

assets/files//PDF/Proceedings/Dini_paper_- 

_History_Residential_Wiring.pdf. 

local building codes, most of which 

mandate adherence to National Fire 

Protection Agency (NFPA) 70, NEC, may 

not be ignored by consumers who 

would install a range with an electrical 

connection when replacing their pilot 

ignition ranges. AGA stated that many 

homes with standing pilot gas ranges are 

older and will not have outlets in close 

enough proximity to the range. AGA 

believes that current shipments of pilot 

ignition gas products are used in a 

segment of the replacement market 

where an electrical outlet is not within 

six feet of the appliance, and that these 

consumers will have to install an 

electrical outlet in the vicinity of their 

range. (AGA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 23.7 at pp. 149–52; and AGA, No. 

27 at pp. 2–3, 6–7, and 11–12) 

ASAP inquired as to whether DOE’s 

estimate that 20 percent of households 

would require the installation of an 

electrical outlet would be updated using 

more recent data. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 150– 

151) According to the Joint Comment, 

homes with no electricity in the kitchen 

may exist, but they would be such a 

small proportion of homes that the 

installation cost would be negligible in 

a national LCC analysis. (Joint 

Comment, No. 29 at p. 5) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

conducted an assessment of NEC 

requirements over time.50 DOE 

reviewed the gas oven and gas cooktop 

household samples to establish which 

houses may require an outlet 

installation. Because RECS specifies the 

home’s vintage (year built), DOE was 

able to determine the composition of the 

household sample by particular vintage 

groupings. DOE also determined that 

every household in each sample had an 

electric refrigerator, so DOE concluded 

that every home had at least one 

electrical outlet in the kitchen. 

However, the NEC did not require 

spacing of electrical outlets every six 

feet prior to 1959. As a result, DOE 

could not conclusively determine that 

pre-1960 houses would have an outlet 

near the gas-fired appliance. Thus, it 

assumed that pre-1960 homes, 

representing 57 percent of the standard 

gas oven sample and 54 percent of the 

gas cooktop sample, may need an 

additional outlet installed in the kitchen 

to accommodate a gas cooking product 

without standing pilot ignition. Because 

DOE is not aware of any data on how 

the use of gas cooking products 

equipped with standing pilot lights is 

distributed across housing stock 

vintages, it assumed that all of the 

households in each vintage could 

purchase a product with standing pilot 

lights in the base case, but that homes 

built after 1960 would not need an 

outlet. 

For its November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

estimated the installation cost of an 

electrical outlet based on data from RS 

Means. The resulting installation cost 

ranged from $42 to $125 and an average 

installation cost of $76 was used in the 

analysis. AGA commented that the 

installation costs used in the November 

2007 ANOPR are much too low, adding 

that the NEC requires a lot of work to 

install an outlet near a range. AGA said 

that RS Means is an excellent source but 

has severe limitations, especially with 

respect to the variety of likely retrofit 

installations. Also, the RS Means data 

cover repair/remodeling projects in the 

$10,000 to $1 million range, which do 

not capture the true, consumer cost of 

rewiring for a gas range that requires 

electricity (i.e., costs for retrofit wiring 

in a finished kitchen would be 

significantly higher). AGA also stated 

that if the outlet is exposed and 

available for countertop services, a 

ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) is 

required. If the consumer wants to avoid 

the installation of a GFCI, the outlet 

must be located behind the range and 

may require the installation of an 

additional circuit to service the 

additional load. In 1997, AGA’s 

Building Energy and Code Committee 

indicated installation costs ranging from 

$110 to $350 in 1997 dollars for 

retrofits, depending on the region, with 

an average cost of $204. In AGA’s 

opinion, such installation estimates are 

more representative than the cost used 

by DOE. AGA requested that DOE 

conduct a survey in major metropolitan 

areas and include varied housing types 

to obtain current installation costs. 

(AGA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23.7 at p. 22, 150; AGA, No. 27 at p. 3, 

pp. 12–13, and pp. 6–7) Supporting this 

position, GE commented that adding a 

new outlet to an existing kitchen would 

easily cost hundreds of dollars, whereas 

providing electricity to a rural 

household could cost thousands. (GE, 

No. 30 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that the current NEC 

allows outlets for gas-fired appliances to 

be attached to existing small appliance 

circuits in kitchens. DOE revisited its 

installation cost estimates to address the 

requirements in the NEC for installing 

electrical outlets. As noted above, the 

NEC did not require that electrical 

outlets be spaced every six feet prior to 

1959. In addition, the NEC had no 

requirement prior to 1962 that branch 

electrical circuits include a grounding 

conductor or ground path to which the 

grounding contacts of the receptacle 

could be connected. Therefore, because 

a GFCI outlet may need to be installed 

for older housing units built prior to the 

modern NEC, DOE revised its 

installation costs based solely on the 

installation of a GFCI outlet in a 

finished space. DOE derived its 

estimates based on the grounding of the 

outlet to a water pipe in the kitchen 

rather than back to a fuse box or circuit 

breaker panel. As in the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE relied on cost data from 

RS Means to estimate the installation 

cost. DOE recognizes that RS Means 

covers large projects totaling at least 

$10,000, so it added an electrician’s trip 

charge to the installation cost. The 

resulting average installation cost 

determined by DOE is $235, much 

higher than the $76 cost it estimated for 

the November 2007 ANOPR. 

Providing information on an 

alternative approach to installing an 

electrical outlet near the range, the Joint 

Comment urged DOE to consider the 

cost of adding an external, low-voltage 

power supply to the range to enable 

spark ignition. This power supply could 

then be plugged into more distant, 

existing outlets. The cost of such a 

power supply, even considering the 

need to include several transformer 

stages, would likely be a fraction of the 

cost of installing an outlet in the house. 

(Joint Comment, No. 29 at p. 6) DOE did 

not consider options to install a power 

supply in the appliance that would 

enable the use of low-voltage wiring to 

power the gas cooking product. This 

does not affect DOE’s estimate that an 

outlet would need to be installed, 

because homes built before 1960 would 

still require an outlet installation to 

avoid the use of long extension cords to 

connect the appliance to an available 

outlet that could be up to 20 feet away 

from the cooking product. 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

DOE did not receive comments about 

installation costs for CCWs. Therefore, 

today’s proposed rule used roughly the 

same installation costs as in the 

November 2007 ANOPR. As noted 

previously, the only change 

implemented by DOE was to update its 

costs from the November 2007 ANOPR, 

which were based on the RS Means 

Plumbing Cost Data, 2005, to those 

based on the RS Means Mechanical Cost 

Data, 2008. The resulting installation 

cost that DOE estimated equaled $186. 

DOE estimates that installation costs do 

not increase with product efficiency. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62062 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

51California Energy Commission, California 

Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Survey 

(Prepared for the CEC by KEMA–XNERGY, Itron, 

and RoperASW. Contract No. 400–04–009)(June 

2004). This document is available at: http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/index.html. 

52Parker, D. S., ‘‘Research Highlights from a Large 

Scale Residential Monitoring Study in a Hot 

Climate,’’ Proceedings of International Symposium 

on Highly Efficient Use of Energy and Reduction of 

its Environmental Impact (Japan Society for the 

Promotion of Science Research for the Future 

Program, JPS–RFTF97P01002) (Jan. 2002) pp. 108– 

116. (Also published as FSEC–PF369–02, Florida 

Solar Energy Center.) This document is available at: 

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/ 

FSEC-PF-369-02/index.htm. 

53U.S. Department of Energy, Final Rule 

Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy 

Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: 

Clothes Washers (Dec. 2000) Chapter 4, Table 4.1. 

This document is available at: http://www.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/clothes_washers.html. 

54The DOE clothes washer test procedure 

calculates total per-cycle energy consumption as the 

sum of: (1) The energy required to heat the water; 

and (2) the electrical energy required for the basket 

motor and drive system, controls, display, etc. (i.e., 

machine energy use.) In addition, the MEF includes 

the energy required by a dryer to remove the RMC. 

Water heating energy and the energy required to 

remove the RMC are significantly higher than 

machine energy. 

55City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services 

and Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 

Multi-Unit Residential Clothes Washer Replacement 

Pilot Project 1999 (May 2003). 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

a. Cooking Products 

For cooking products (except 

microwave ovens), DOE determined in 

its November 2007 ANOPR that cooking 

energy consumption has declined since 

the mid-1990s. DOE based its 

determination on results from the 2004 

California Residential Appliance 

Saturation Survey (RASS) 51 and the 

Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC).52

GE stated that its own internal 

information confirms DOE’s 

conclusions—namely, that household 

cooking energy use is declining. (GE, 

No. 30 at p. 2) For today’s proposed 

rule, DOE continues to base its annual 

energy consumption estimates for 

cooking products, other than microwave 

ovens, on the data from the 2004 RASS 

and FSEC. As for the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE continues to use the 2001 

RECS data to establish the variability of 

annual cooking energy consumption for 

cooktops and ovens. 

For microwave ovens, DOE used the 

2004 RASS for its November 2007 

ANOPR to estimate the product’s annual 

energy consumption. DOE used the 

2001 RECS data to establish the 

variability of annual cooking energy 

consumption for microwave ovens. For 

today’s proposed rule, DOE continues to 

use the above approaches. Whirlpool 

stated that DOE should consider that 

microwave ovens use only one-quarter 

to one-third the energy of conventional 

ovens because conventional ovens are 

preheated and need to heat larger oven 

cavities. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 5) 

DOE’s findings indicate that both 

standard and self-cleaning electric 

ovens use approximately 170 kWh per 

year, whereas microwave ovens use on 

average 131 kWh per year, or 77 percent 

of the annual energy consumed by 

conventional ovens. 

One change from the November 2007 

ANOPR is inclusion of annual energy 

consumption associated with standby 

power. To estimate the annual energy 

use associated with standby power, DOE 

multiplied the baseline standby power 

by the number of hours in a year that 

the oven is in standby mode. The 

annual standby hours equals total hours 

in a year minus the number of hours 

that the microwave oven is in active 

operation. DOE determined the hours of 

active operation by dividing the average 

annual energy consumption by a 

representative input power for 

microwave ovens. Based on DOE’s 

testing of microwave ovens reported at 

the December 2007 public meeting, the 

average microwave output power is 

1,026 W. Based on the baseline 

microwave EF of 0.557, the average 

input power is 1,842 W. Therefore, 

based on an annual cooking energy 

consumption of 131 kWh per year, there 

are 71 hours of active operation, 

resulting in 8,689 hours that the 

appliance is in standby mode. See 

chapter 6 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice for further details. 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

For CCWs, DOE determined the 

annual energy and water consumption 

for its November 2007 ANOPR by 

multiplying the per-cycle energy and 

water use by the estimated number of 

cycles per year. CCW per-cycle energy 

consumption has three components: (1) 

Water-heating energy; (2) machine 

energy (the motor energy for turning an 

agitator or rotating a drum); and (3) 

drying energy. DOE determined the percycle clothes-drying energy use by first 

establishing the RMC based on the 

relationship between RMC and the MEF, 

and then using the DOE test procedure 

equation that determines the per-cycle 

energy consumption for the removal of 

moisture. DOE took the per-cycle 

machine energy use from its 2000 TSD 

for RCWs.53 As noted in the discussion 

of the CCW test procedure (section 

III.B.3 of this notice,) DOE believes that 

the existing RCW test procedure 

adequately accounts for the 

characteristic energy and water use for 

CCWs in the NOPR analyses. As a 

result, DOE also believes that the percycle machine energy use for RCWs 

would be representative of CCW 

machine energy consumption. In the 

2000 TSD, machine energy was 

calculated to be 0.133 kWh per cycle for 

MEFs up to 1.40, and 0.114 kWh per 

cycle for MEFs greater than 1.40. With 

the per-cycle clothes-drying and 

machine energy known, DOE 

determined the per-cycle water-heating 

energy use by first determining the total 

per-cycle energy use (the clothes 

container volume divided by the MEF) 

and then subtracting from it the percycle clothes-drying and machine 

energy. 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

specifically requested comment on 

whether the RCW per-cycle energy 

consumption values for clothes-drying 

and machine use are representative of 

CCWs. 72 FR 64432, 64513 (Nov. 15, 

2007). AHAM and Whirlpool 

commented generally that residential 

clothes washer energy consumption is 

representative of the energy 

consumption of CCWs. (AHAM, No. 32 

at p. 10 and Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 7– 

8) More specifically, AHAM stated that 

residential clothes washer per-cycle 

energy consumption is representative of 

CCW per-cycle energy consumption. 

(AHAM, No. 32 at p. 10) Whirlpool 

commented that the RMC values that 

DOE used appear to be reasonable. 

(Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 7–8) 

Whirlpool added that because machine 

energy use is a relatively small 

component of overall energy 

consumption,54 mischaracterization of it 

probably would not distort the overall 

analysis. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 7) 

NPCC, on the other hand, referred to 

studies (specifically one commissioned 

by the City of Toronto) 55 that have 

found that drying times in commercial 

laundry do not decrease with RMC. 

Because dryers do not have moisture 

sensors to terminate the cycle, NPCC 

claims they will continue to run based 

on the amount of money fed into the 

machine. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at p. 126) 

DOE recognizes that in some 

commercial settings, the drying cycle 

time may be fixed at a longer period 

than what the DOE dryer test procedure 

requires to achieve a ‘‘bone dry’’ state. 

As a result, the actual drying energy 

may not decrease as the RMC in 

clothing loads are lowered, which 

would imply that a CCW that produces 

a lower RMC in the wash load could be 

improperly receiving credit in the 

calculation of MEF. However, DOE 

notes that the cycle length for some 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62063 

56Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ 

electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. 

57 DOE-Energy Information Administration, 

Natural Gas Monthly. Available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/ 

data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.htm. 

58U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with 

Projections to 2030 (DOE/EIA–0383) (March 2008). 

59Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., ‘‘2006 

RFC/AWWA Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, 

2006,’’ (2006). This document is available at: 

http://www.raftelis.com/ratessurvey.html. 

60Available at: http://www.bls.gov. 

commercial dryers can be adjusted by 

the laundromat owner or route operator 

to match the average RMC of the CCWs 

at the same location, allowing for 

shorter drying cycles if the RMC is 

lowered. In addition, electronic 

payment systems, if equipped, provide 

the end-user the opportunity to select 

only the amount of time required to 

achieve the desired dryness of the load. 

Even if such adjustments are not made, 

customers of laundromats with fixedcycle dryers can still benefit from lower 

RMCs by either putting more clothes 

into the dryer than they would have 

previously, or by interrupting the drying 

cycle when the clothes have dried to 

add a new set of clothes. Lastly, some 

laundromats operate ‘‘free’’ dryers (i.e., 

consumers just pay for the wash cycle), 

which incentivize the owners to use 

CCWs equipped with moisture sensors 

to minimize drying time and energy 

consumption. For these reasons, as well 

as the supporting comments received 

from AHAM and Whirlpool, DOE 

believes that the use of the existing 

residential clothes washer test 

procedure provides a representative 

basis for rating and estimating the percycle energy use of CCWs. 

4. Energy and Water Prices 

a. Energy Prices 

DOE derived average electricity and 

natural gas prices for 13 geographic 

areas consisting of the nine U.S. Census 

divisions, with four large States (New 

York, Florida, Texas, and California) 

treated separately. For Census divisions 

containing one of these large States, 

DOE calculated the regional average 

values minus the data for the large State. 

DOE estimated residential and 

commercial electricity prices for each of 

the 13 geographic areas based on data 

from EIA Form 861, Annual Electric 

Power Industry Report.56 DOE 

calculated an average residential 

electricity price by first estimating an 

average residential price for each 

utility—by dividing the residential 

revenues by residential sales—and then 

calculating a regional average price by 

weighting each utility with customers in 

a region by the number of residential 

consumers served in that region. For the 

November 2007 ANOPR, DOE used EIA 

data from 2004. The calculation 

methodology for today’s proposed rule 

uses the most recent available data from 

2006. The calculation methodology of 

average commercial electricity prices is 

identical to that for residential prices, 

except that DOE used commercial sector 

data. 

DOE estimated residential and 

commercial natural gas prices in each of 

the 13 geographic areas based on data 

from the EIA publication Natural Gas 

Monthly.57 For the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE used the complete annual 

data for 2005 to calculate an average 

summer and winter price for each area. 

For today’s proposed rule, DOE used 

more recent 2006 data from the same 

source. It calculated seasonal prices 

because, for some end uses, seasonal 

variation in energy consumption is 

significant. DOE defined summer as the 

months May through September, with 

all other months defined as winter. DOE 

calculated an average natural gas price 

by first calculating the summer and 

winter prices for each State, using a 

simple average over the appropriate 

months, and then calculating a regional 

price by weighting each State in a region 

by its population. This method differs 

from the method used to calculate 

electricity prices, because EIA does not 

provide consumer-level or utility-level 

data on gas consumption and prices. 

The methods for calculating average 

commercial and residential natural gas 

prices are identical to each other except 

that the former relies on commercial 

sector data. Upon review of natural gas 

prices, AGA stated that, because DOE’s 

analysis relied upon 2005 natural gas 

prices, the analysis overstates the cost of 

natural gas. AGA requested that DOE 

conduct a new natural gas cost survey 

to reflect current prices. (AGA, No. 27 

at p. 4) As described above, DOE 

updated the prices to use the most 

recent data available from 2006. As 

described below, DOE uses price 

projections from EIA’s AEO to forecast 

prices for future years. As is discussed 

in detail in section IV.E.3.g of this 

notice, for today’s proposed rule, DOE 

did assess the impact of new energy 

conservation standards for cooking 

products and CCWs on forecasted 

energy prices. 

To estimate the trends in electricity 

and natural gas prices for the November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE used the price 

forecasts in EIA’s AEO 2007. For today’s 

proposed rule, DOE updated its energy 

price forecasts to those in the AEO 

2008.58 For today’s proposed rule, DOE 

based its results on the AEO 2008 

reference case price forecasts. The 

spreadsheet tools which DOE used to 

conduct the LCC and PBP analysis allow 

users to select either the AEO’s highgrowth case or low-growth case price 

forecasts to estimate the sensitivity of 

the LCC and PBP to different energy 

price forecasts. To arrive at prices in 

future years, DOE multiplied the 

average prices described above by the 

forecast of annual average price changes 

in AEO 2008. Because AEO 2008 

forecasts prices to 2030, DOE followed 

past guidelines provided to the FEMP 

by EIA and used the average rate of 

change during 2020–2030 to estimate 

the price trends after 2030. For the 

analyses to be conducted for the final 

rule, DOE intends to update its energy 

price forecasts based on the latest 

available AEO. 

b. Water and Wastewater Prices 

DOE obtained residential and 

commercial water and wastewater price 

data from the Water and Wastewater 

Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis 

Financial Consultants (RFC) and the 

American Water Works Association 

(AWWA). For the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE used the version of the 

survey from 2004, but for today’s 

proposed rule, DOE used the most 

recent version (i.e., the 2006 Water and 

Wastewater Rate Survey.) 59 The survey 

covers approximately 300 water utilities 

and 200 wastewater utilities, with each 

industry analyzed separately. Because a 

sample of 200–300 utilities is not large 

enough to calculate regional prices for 

all U.S. Census divisions and large 

States, DOE calculated regional values 

at the Census region level (Northeast, 

South, Midwest, and West). 

To estimate the future trend for water 

and wastewater prices, DOE used data 

on the historic trend in the national 

water price index (U.S. city average) 

provided by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS).60 For the November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE used data covering 

the time period from 1970 through 2005. 

For today’s proposed rule, DOE used 

updated data to extend that time period 

through 2007. DOE extrapolated a future 

trend based on the linear growth from 

1970 to 2007. 

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in the appliance, whereas 

maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

equipment. For the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE assumed that small, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62064 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

61U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support 

Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Consumer Products: Residential Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps (May 2002) Chapter 

5. This document is available at: http:// 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

ac_central_1000_r.html. 

62The Weibull distribution is one of the most 

widely used lifetime distributions in reliability 

engineering. It is a versatile distribution that can 

take on the characteristics of other types of 

distributions, based on the value of its shape 

parameter. 

incremental changes in products related 

to efficiency result in either no or only 

small changes in repair and 

maintenance costs, compared with 

baseline products. However, DOE 

sought comment on its assumption that 

increases in product energy efficiency 

would not have a significant impact on 

the repair and maintenance costs. 

a. Cooking Products 

AGA noted that DOE had not 

included higher maintenance costs in its 

LCC analysis for gas cooking products 

with a more complex ignition system 

(i.e., non-standing pilot ignition 

systems). According to AGA, this is a 

significant omission that DOE needs to 

address, especially since AGA stated 

that standing pilot ignition systems are 

likely to be relatively maintenance-free 

over the assumed product life of 19 

years, whereas electronic ignition 

systems are not. AGA noted that in an 

analysis provided to DOE in 1998, 

Battelle estimated independent failure 

rates for each electronic ignition system 

as 0.9 failures over the life of the 

product. Battelle assumed that two such 

ignition system failures would occur on 

a free-standing range and that these 

failures would be non-concurrent. AGA 

commented that DOE needs to account 

for the increased repair costs for pilot 

ranges equipped with electronic 

controls and recommended that DOE’s 

analysis include two electronic ignition 

service calls for these products, which 

AGA estimated currently costs between 

$125 and $300, including parts and 

labor, per service call. (AGA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 154– 

155; AGA, No. 27 at pp. 3–4 and p. 15) 

DOE contacted six contractors in 

different States to estimate whether 

repair and maintenance costs still differ 

between standing pilot and nonstanding pilot ignition systems. Based 

on the contractors’ input, DOE 

determined that standing pilots are less 

costly to repair and maintain than either 

electric glo-bar/hot surface ignition 

systems (used in most gas ovens) or 

electronic spark ignition systems (used 

in gas cooktops and a small percentage 

of gas ovens). Standing pilot ignition 

systems require repair and maintenance 

every 10 years to clean valves. Electric 

glo-bar/hot surface ignition systems 

require glo-bar replacement 

approximately every 5 years. In the case 

of electronic ignition systems, control 

modules tend to last 10 years. The 

electrodes/igniters can fail because of 

hard contact from pots or pans, although 

failures are rare. Based on the above 

findings, DOE revised its analysis of 

repair and maintenance costs for gas 

cooking products. For standing pilot 

ignition systems, DOE estimated an 

average cost of $126 occurring in the 

tenth year of the product’s life. For 

electric glo-bar/hot surface ignition 

systems, DOE estimated an average cost 

of $147 occurring every fifth year during 

the product’s lifetime. For electronic 

spark ignition systems, DOE estimated 

an average cost of $178 occurring in the 

tenth year of the product’s life. See 

chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice for further information regarding 

these estimates. 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

AHAM, Alliance, and Whirlpool 

commented that front-loading units 

generally require more maintenance and 

repair than top-loading units. (AHAM, 

No. 32 at pp. 4, 9, 11, Alliance, No. 26 

at p. 4 and Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 8) 

Alliance stated that repair costs for 

front-loading washers are significantly 

higher than those for top-loading units 

because of their incorporation of 

electronic controls, variable speed 

motors, door locks, and multiple shock 

absorbers. Alliance claimed that more 

electronic circuitry and additional door 

lock circuitry increases diagnostic time 

and, thus, increases repair costs. 

(Alliance, No. 26 at p. 4) Whirlpool said 

that although the unit shipments of 

front-loading CCWs are less than half 

that of top-loading machines, the inwarranty repair costs are double that of 

top-loading machines, suggesting that 

the repair of front-loading machines is 

four times as costly as that of toploading machines. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at 

p. 8) The Joint Comment, on the other 

hand, stated that their organizations are 

not aware of any data showing or 

suggesting that more-efficient products 

break down more often or require more 

maintenance than less efficient 

products. (Joint Comment, No. 29 at p. 

10) 

Although AHAM, Alliance, and 

Whirlpool claim that repair and 

maintenance costs are greater for frontloading washers than top-loading 

machines, no specific data were 

provided to identify the magnitude of 

such costs. Although in-warranty repair 

costs may be greater for front-loading 

washers as Whirlpool claims, the repair 

costs are not incurred by the consumer 

and thus do not contribute to the LCC 

of owning and operating the washer. 

However, DOE does recognize that a 

higher incidence of in-warranty repairs 

is likely to be an indication of the 

frequency of out-of-warranty repairs. 

Therefore, rather than continue to 

assume that higher-efficiency CCW 

designs do not incur higher repair costs, 

DOE included increased repair costs in 

today’s proposed rule based on an 

algorithm developed by DOE for central 

air conditioners and heat pumps and 

which was also used for residential 

furnaces boilers.61 This algorithm 

calculates annualized repair costs by 

dividing half of the equipment retail 

price by the equipment lifetime. 

6. Product Lifetime 

For the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

used a variety of sources to establish 

low, average, and high estimates for 

product lifetime. For residential cooking 

products, DOE established average 

product lifetimes of 19 years for 

conventional electric and gas cooking 

products and 9 years for microwave 

ovens. For CCWs, the average lifetime 

was 11.3 years for multi-family 

applications, and 7.1 years for 

laundromats. For the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE primarily used the full 

range of lifetime estimates to 

characterize the product lifetimes with 

uniform probability distributions 

ranging from a minimum to a maximum 

value. For microwave ovens, DOE used 

a triangular probability distribution to 

characterize product lifetime. 

Whirlpool commented on DOE’s use 

of uniform probability distributions by 

stating that the vast majority of 

statistical texts apply a ‘‘long-tailed’’ 

distribution to product failure/lifetimes. 

According to Whirlpool, generally, the 

Weibull,62 or at least the Poisson 

distribution, is used for such purposes. 

Whirlpool strongly urged DOE to correct 

this oversimplification. (Whirlpool, No. 

28 at p. 12) Because Weibull 

distributions are commonly used in 

reliability analyses, DOE agrees with 

Whirlpool and revised its 

characterization of residential cooking 

product and CCW product lifetimes for 

today’s proposed rule with Weibull 

probability distributions. See chapter 8 

of the TSD accompanying this notice for 

further details on the sources used to 

develop product lifetimes, as well as the 

use of Weibull distributions to 

characterize product lifetime 

distributions. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62065 

63The Federal Reserve Board, 1989, 1992, 1995, 

1998, 2001, 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances 

(1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004). These 

documents are available at: http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/ 

scfindex.html. 

7. Discount Rates 

a. Cooking Products 

To establish discount rates for the 

cooking products in the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE derived estimates of the 

finance cost of purchasing these 

appliances. Because the purchase of 

equipment for new homes entails 

different finance costs for consumers 

than the purchase of replacement 

equipment, DOE used different discount 

rates for new construction and 

replacement installations. 

DOE estimated discount rates for newhousing purchases using the effective 

real (after-inflation) mortgage rate for 

homebuyers. This rate corresponds to 

the interest rate after deduction of 

mortgage interest for income tax 

purposes and after adjusting for 

inflation. DOE used the Federal Reserve 

Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances 

(SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, and 

2001 for mortgage interest rates.63 After 

adjusting for inflation and interest tax 

deduction, effective real interest rates 

on mortgages across the six surveys 

averaged 3.2 percent. For replacement 

purchases, DOE’s approach for deriving 

discount rates involved identifying all 

possible debt or asset classes that might 

be used to purchase replacement 

equipment, including household assets 

that might be affected indirectly. DOE 

estimated the average shares of the 

various debt and equity classes in the 

average U.S. household equity and debt 

portfolios using data from the SCFs from 

1989 to 2004. DOE used the mean share 

of each class across the six sample years 

as a basis for estimating the effective 

financing rate for replacement 

equipment. DOE estimated interest or 

return rates associated with each type of 

equity and debt using SCF data and 

other sources. The mean real effective 

rate across the classes of household debt 

and equity, weighted by the shares of 

each class, is 5.6 percent. See chapter 8 

of the TSD accompanying this notice for 

further details on the development of 

discount rates for cooking products. 

The Joint Comment stated that if DOE 

continues to use a weighted-average cost 

of capital approach, the agency should 

make sure its calculations are up to date 

and consider consumers who use credit 

cards as month-to-month free loans by 

paying their bills on time. (Joint 

Comment, No. 29 at p. 13) As noted 

above, in developing its discount rates 

for residential consumers, DOE used 

data from the SCF. Data from the 2007 

SCF survey were not available for this 

rulemaking. However, because the rates 

for various forms of credit carried by 

households in these years were 

established over a range of time, DOE 

believes they are representative of rates 

that may be in effect in 2013. The SCF 

data do not allow consideration of the 

special situations cited by the 

stakeholders, and DOE is not aware of 

any other nationally representative data 

source that provides interest rates from 

a statistically valid sample. Therefore, 

DOE continued to use the above 

approach and results for today’s 

proposed rule. 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

For CCWs, DOE derived the discount 

rate for its November 2007 ANOPR from 

the cost of capital of publicly traded 

firms in the sectors that purchase CCWs. 

DOE estimated the cost of capital of 

these firms as the weighted average of 

the cost of equity financing and the cost 

of debt financing. DOE identified the 

following sectors purchasing CCWs: (1) 

Educational services; (2) hotels; (3) real 

estate investment trusts; and (4) 

personal services. DOE estimated the 

cost of equity using the capital asset 

pricing model (CAPM). The cost of debt 

financing is the interest rate paid on 

money borrowed by a company. DOE 

estimated the weighted-average cost of 

capital (WACC) using the respective 

shares of equity and debt financing for 

each sector that purchases CCWs. It 

calculated the real WACC by adjusting 

the cost of capital by the expected rate 

of inflation. To obtain an average 

discount rate value, DOE used 

additional data on the number of CCWs 

in use in various sectors. DOE estimated 

the average discount rate for companies 

that purchase CCWs at 5.7 percent. DOE 

received no comments on its 

development of discount rates for CCWs 

and continued to use the same approach 

for today’s proposed rule. 

8. Effective Date of the Amended 

Standards 

The effective date is the future date 

when parties subject to the requirements 

of a new standard must begin 

compliance. Consistent with DOE’s 

semi-annual implementation report for 

energy conservation standards activities 

submitted to Congress pursuant to 

section 141 of EPACT 2005, a final rule 

for all of the appliance products 

considered for this rulemaking is 

scheduled to be completed by March 

2009. Any new energy efficiency 

standards for these products become 

effective three years after the final rule 

is published in the Federal Register 

(i.e., March 2012). DOE calculated the 

LCC for the appliance consumers as if 

they would purchase a new piece of 

equipment in the year the standard 

takes effect. 

9. Equipment Assignment for the Base 

Case 

For the LCC analysis for its November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE analyzed candidate 

standard levels relative to a baseline 

efficiency level. However, some 

consumers already purchase products 

with efficiencies greater than the 

baseline product levels. Thus, to 

accurately estimate the percentage of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

particular standard level, DOE’s analysis 

considered the full breadth of product 

efficiencies that consumers already 

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

case without new energy efficiency 

standards). DOE refers to this 

distribution of product efficiencies as 

base-case efficiency distributions. 

a. Cooking Products 

DOE’s approach for conducting the 

LCC analysis for cooking products relied 

on developing samples of households 

that use each of the products. Using the 

current distribution of product 

efficiencies, DOE assigned a specific 

product efficiency to each sample 

household. Because DOE performed the 

LCC calculations on a household-byhousehold basis, it based the LCC for a 

particular standard level on the 

efficiency of the product in the given 

household. For example, if a household 

was assigned a product efficiency that is 

greater than or equal to the efficiency of 

the standard level under consideration, 

the LCC calculation would show that 

this household is not impacted by an 

increase in product efficiency that is 

equal to the standard level. 

DOE currently does not regulate 

cooking product efficiency with an 

energy efficiency descriptor, so little is 

known about the distribution of product 

efficiencies that consumers currently 

purchase. Thus, for all electric cooking 

products (other than microwave ovens) 

and gas self-cleaning ovens, DOE 

estimated that 100 percent of the market 

is at the baseline efficiency levels. For 

gas cooktops and gas standard ovens, 

data are available that allowed DOE to 

estimate the percentage of gas cooktops 

and gas standard ovens still sold with 

standing pilot lights. 

DOE sought stakeholder feedback on 

its methodology and data sources for 

estimating base-case efficiency 

distributions. Whirlpool commented 

that DOE’s distributions for the 

November 2007 ANOPR for all cooking 

products (except for gas standard ovens) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62066 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

were reasonably accurate. (Whirlpool, 

No. 28 at pp. 8–9) DOE continued to use 

these base-case efficiency distributions 

for today’s proposed rule. For gas 

standard ovens, Whirlpool stated that 

the percentage of the market at the 

baseline level should be half of what 

DOE estimated. (Id.) DOE developed the 

market share of gas standard ovens with 

standing pilots on actual shipments 

data, the most recent being data from 

the Appliance Recycling Information 

Center (ARIC) for 1997, 2000, and 2004. 

Without actual shipments data from 

Whirlpool, DOE believes it has no basis 

to change its estimated market share of 

gas standard ovens with standing pilots. 

For the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

allocated the entire market share of 

products without standard pilots to 

standard level 1 (products with glo-bar 

ignition). Based on information 

collected during the course of DOE’s 

contacts with contractors to establish 

the repair and maintenance costs of gas 

cooking product ignition systems, DOE 

now estimates that 10 percent of 

products without standing pilots use 

spark ignition systems. 

Table IV.5 shows the market shares of 

the efficiency levels in the base case 

(i.e., in the absence of new energy 

conservation standards) for gas cooktops 

and gas standard ovens. In the table, 

candidate standard level 1 represents 

products without standing pilot light 

ignition systems. 

TABLE IV.5—GAS COOKTOPS AND GAS STANDARD OVENS: BASE CASE MARKET SHARES

Gas cooktops Gas standard ovens 

Standard level EF Market share 

(percent) Standard level EF Market share (percent) 

Baseline .......................................... 0.156 6 .8 Baseline ......................................... 0.0298 17 .6 

1 ...................................................... 0.399 93 .2 1* .................................................... 0.0536 74 .2 

2 ...................................................... 0.420 0 2 ..................................................... 0.0566 0 

3 ..................................................... 0.0572 0 

4 ..................................................... 0.0593 0 

5 ..................................................... 0.0596 0 

6 ..................................................... 0.0600 0 

1a* .................................................. 0.0583 8 .2 

* For gas standard ovens, candidate standard levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are used for the same purpose—to eliminate the 

need for a standing pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Candidate standard level 1 is a hot surface ignition device, whereas 

candidate standard level 1a is a spark ignition device. Candidate standard level 1a is presented at the end of the table because candidate standard levels 2 through 6 are derived from candidate standard level 1. 

DOE’s regulations do not currently 

contain standards for microwave ovens, 

so very little is known about the 

distribution of product efficiencies that 

consumers currently purchase. For its 

November 2007 ANOPR, DOE estimated 

that 100 percent of the microwave oven 

market was at the baseline efficiency 

level. This baseline efficiency level was 

described only in terms of the EF, 

because DOE did not consider standby 

power consumption for microwave 

ovens in its November 2007 ANOPR. As 

discussed previously in section IV.D, 

DOE established four standby power 

levels for consideration in today’s 

proposed rule. Because DOE tentatively 

determined that it is technically 

infeasible to combine EF and standby 

power into a single efficiency metric, it 

continues to address the four cooking 

efficiency levels considered in the 

November 2007 ANOPR, independent of 

standby power consumption. (See 

section III.A. for a complete discussion 

on the technical infeasibility of 

combining EF and standby power into a 

single metric.) Table IV.6 shows the EF 

levels and their market shares in the 

base case. 72 FR 64432, 64488 (Nov. 15, 

2007). 

TABLE IV.6—MICROWAVE OVENS: BASE CASE MARKET SHARES FOR EF 

Standard level EF Market share 

(percent) 

Baseline ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.557 100 

1a ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.586 0.0 

2a ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.588 0.0 

3a ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.597 0.0 

4a ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.602 0.0 

With regard to standby power, during 

the course of DOE’s investigation of 

microwave oven standby power 

consumption, DOE and AHAM tested a 

combined total of 52 units (see section 

III.A.). Based on these tests, DOE 

determined the percentage at each of the 

standby power levels identified in 

section IV.C.1. Because no other data 

were available, DOE used the test data 

from the combined sample to develop 

the market shares of standby power 

consumption in the base case. DOE 

seeks comment on whether the market 

share data in Table IV.7 are 

representative of the microwave oven 

market as a whole. 

TABLE IV.7—MICROWAVE OVENS: BASE CASE MARKET SHARES FOR STANDBY POWER

Standard level Standby power 

(watts) 

Market share 

(percent) 

Baseline ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 .0 46.2 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62067 

64This document is available at: http://sec.edgaronline.com/2000/06/29/16/0000902561-00-000328/ 

Section2.asp. 

65This document is available at: http:// 

www.secinfo.com/d11MXs.ujBa.htm#1j71. 

TABLE IV.7—MICROWAVE OVENS: BASE CASE MARKET SHARES FOR STANDBY POWER—Continued 

Standard level Standby power 

(watts) 

Market share 

(percent) 

1b ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 .0 34.6 

2b ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 .5 19.2 

3b ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 .0 0.0 

4b ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .02 0.0 

b. Commercial Clothes Washers 

For the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

derived its base-case market share data 

for CCWs based on shipment-weighted 

efficiency data provided by AHAM and 

assuming that CCWs were to be 

analyzed as a single product class. DOE 

sought stakeholder feedback on its 

methodology and data sources. 

Whirlpool commented that the 

distributions used by DOE for CCWs are 

reasonably accurate. (Whirlpool, No. 28 

at p. 9) 

As discussed previously in section 

IV.A.2., DOE has now decided to 

analyze CCWs with two product classes 

for today’s proposed rule—top-loading 

washers and front-loading washers. DOE 

used the number of available models 

within each product class to establish 

the base-case effciency distributions. 

Table IV.8 presents the market shares of 

the efficiency levels in the base case for 

CCWs. See chapter 8 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

details on the development of CCW 

base-case market shares. 

TABLE IV.8—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS: BASE CASE MARKET SHARES

Top-loading Front-loading 

Standard level MEF WF 

Market 

share 

(percent) 

Standard level MEF WF 

Market 

share 

(percent) 

Baseline ............................ 1.26 9.50 63.6 Baseline ........................... 1.72 8.00 7.4 

1 ........................................ 1.42 9.50 33.3 1 ....................................... 1.80 7.50 4.4 

2 ........................................ 1.60 8.50 0.0 2 ....................................... 2.00 5.50 85.3 

3 ........................................ 1.76 8.30 3.0 3 ....................................... 2.20 5.10 1.5 

4 ....................................... 2.34 4.40 1.5 

10. Commercial Clothes Washer Split 

Incentive 

Under a split incentive situation, the 

party purchasing more efficient and 

presumably more expensive equipment 

may not realize the operating cost 

savings from that equipment, because 

another party (e.g., a landlord) may pay 

the utility bill. In the November 2007 

ANOPR, DOE did not explicitly 

consider the potential of split incentives 

in the CCW market, because it believed 

that the probability of such incentives 

was very low. 

Whirlpool disagreed with DOE’s 

dismissal of the potential for split 

incentives in the CCW market. 

Whirlpool stated that those who own 

CCWs (usually route operators) do not 

incur the operating costs (as do, 

generally, laundromats and owners of 

multi-family dwellings). Route operators 

generally have contracts that run from 5 

to 10 years, which limits their ability to 

pass on the higher costs of higherefficiency units. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at 

pp. 12–13) Alliance noted that multihousing property owners typically lease 

CCWs, and the route operator owns the 

machine. (Alliance, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at p. 85) 

To evaluate the ability of CCW owners 

to pass on the costs of more expensive 

CCWs in the form of higher lease costs, 

DOE examined the SEC filings of two of 

the largest route operators, Coinmach 

Service Corporation (Coinmach) and 

Mac-Gray Corporation (Mac-Gray). DOE 

found that the lease agreements for 

those two operators allow for flexibility 

in their contracting. Coinmach stated 

the following in a June 2000 10–K 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC) filing: ‘‘The Company’s 

[Coinmach] leases typically include 

provisions that allow for unrestricted 

price increases, a right of first refusal 

(an opportunity to match competitive 

bids at the expiration of the lease term) 

and termination rights if the Company 

does not receive minimum net revenues 

from a lease. The Company has some 

flexibility in negotiating its leases and, 

subject to local and regional competitive 

factors, may vary the terms and 

conditions of a lease, including 

commission rates and advance location 

payments.’’ 64 The 2006 Mac-Gray 10–K 

SEC filing suggests that lease 

agreements are relatively short term, i.e., 

under five years rather than the 5 to 10 

years identified by Whirlpool: ‘‘As of 

December 31, 2006, approximately 90% 

of our [Mac-Gray] installed machine 

base was located in laundry facilities 

subject to long-term leases, which have 

a weighted average remaining term of 

approximately five years . . . 

Approximately 10% to 15% of such 

laundry room leases are up for renewal 

each year.’’ 65 This lease turnover rate 

suggests that route operators should be 

able to time equipment replacement 

and/or upgrades with lease renewals. 

This in turn allows route operators to 

renegotiate lease terms to compensate 

them for the higher capital expenditures 

associated with more-efficient laundry 

equipment while splitting the economic 

benefits of such CCWs with the building 

owner(s) as part of the lease. 

Based on this information, DOE 

believes that few route operators would 

allow themselves to be held to a lease 

agreement that would prevent them 

from recovering the cost of more 

efficient CCW equipment. Therefore, 

DOE concludes that new CCW 

efficiency standards are unlikely to lead 

to split incentives in the CCW market. 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of more 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62068 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

efficient equipment through energy (and 

water) cost savings, compared to 

baseline equipment. The simple 

payback period does not account for 

changes in operating expense over time 

or the time value of money. Payback 

periods are expressed in years. Payback 

periods greater than the life of the 

product mean that the increased total 

installed cost is not recovered in 

reduced operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation are 

the total installed cost of the equipment 

to the customer for each efficiency level 

and the annual (first-year) operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level. 

The PBP calculation uses the same 

inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 

energy (and water) price trends and 

discount rates are not needed. 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

DOE performs a PBP analysis to 

determine whether the three-year 

rebuttable presumption of economic 

justification applies (in essence, 

whether the purchaser will recover the 

higher installed cost of more-efficient 

equipment through lowered operating 

costs within three years). For each TSL, 

DOE determined the value of the first 

year’s energy savings by calculating the 

quantity of those savings in accordance 

with DOE’s test procedure, and 

multiplying that amount by the average 

energy price forecast for the year in 

which a new standard is expected to 

take effect—in this case, 2012. Section 

V.B.1.c. of this notice and chapter 8 of 

the TSD accompanying this notice 

present the rebuttable-presumption PBP 

results. DOE did not receive any 

comments on its analysis of the threeyear rebuttable presumption of 

economic justification. 

E. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. General 

DOE’s NIA assesses the national 

energy savings, as well as the NPV of 

total customer costs and savings 

expected to result from new standards at 

specific efficiency levels. 

DOE used the NIA spreadsheet to 

perform calculations of energy savings 

and NPV, using the annual energy 

consumption and total installed cost 

data used in the LCC analysis. DOE 

forecasted the energy savings, energy 

cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV 

for each product class from 2012 

through 2042. The forecasts provided 

annual and cumulative values for all 

four output parameters. In addition, 

DOE incorporated into its NIA 

spreadsheet the capability to analyze 

sensitivities to forecasted energy prices 

and product efficiency trends. 

Table IV.9 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the NES and NPV analyses for the 

November 2007 ANOPR and the 

changes made in the analyses of the 

proposed rule. A discussion of the 

inputs and the changes follows below. 

(See chapter 11 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

details.) 

TABLE IV.9—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT

VALUE ANALYSES

Inputs 2007 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Shipments ............................ Annual shipments from Shipments Model ...................... See Table IV.10. 

Effective Date of Standard ... 2012 ................................................................................ No change. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies.Shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) determined in 

the year 2005. SWEF held constant over forecast period of 2005–2042.

No change. 

Standards-Case Forecasted 

Efficiencies.

Cooking Products: ‘‘Roll-up’’ scenario used for determining SWEF in the year 2012 for each standards 

case. SWEF held constant over forecast period of 

2012–2042.

Cooking Products: No change. 

CCWs: Analyzed as a single product class. Roll-up 

scenario used for determining SWEF in the year 

2012 for each standards case. SWEF held constant 

over forecast period of 2012–2042.

CCWs: Analyzed as two product classes. For each 

product class, roll-up scenario used for determining 

SWEF in the year 2012 for each standards case. 

SWEF held constant over forecast period of 2012– 

2042. 

Annual Energy Consumption 

per Unit.

Annual weighted-average values as a function of 

SWEF.

No change. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of 

SWEF.

No change. 

Energy and Water Cost per 

Unit.

Annual weighted-average values a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy (and 

water) prices.

No change. 

Repair Cost and Maintenance Cost per Unit.Cooking Products: No changes in repair and maintenance costs due to standards.Cooking Products: Incorporated changes in repair costs 

for non-standing pilot ignition systems. 

CCWs: No changes in repair and maintenance costs 

due to standards.

CCWs: Incorporated changes in repair costs as a function of efficiency. 

Escalation of Energy and 

Water Prices.

Energy Prices: AEO 2007 forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation to 2042.Energy Prices: Updated to AEO 2008 forecasts. 

Water Prices: Linear extrapolation of 1970–2005 historical trends in national water price index.Water Prices: Updated to include historical trend 

through 2007. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion.Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/ 

EIA’s NEMS* program (a time-series conversion factor; includes electric generation, transmission, and 

distribution losses).

No change. 

Effect of Standards on Energy Prices.Not considered ................................................................ Determined but found not to be significant. 

Discount Rate ...................... Three and seven percent real ......................................... No change. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62069 

TABLE IV.9—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT

VALUE ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs 2007 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Present Year ........................ Future expenses are discounted to year 2007 ............... No change. 

2. Shipments 

An important element in the estimate 

of the future impact of a standard is 

product shipments. The shipments 

portion of the NIA Spreadsheet is a 

Shipments Model that uses historical 

data as a basis for projecting future 

shipments of the appliance products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

In projecting shipments, DOE accounted 

for three market segments: (1) New 

construction; (2) existing buildings (i.e., 

replacing failed equipment); and (3) 

early replacements (for cooking 

products) and retired units not replaced 

(i.e., non-replacements for CCWs). DOE 

used the early replacement and nonreplacement market segments to 

calibrate the Shipments Model to 

historical shipments data. For purposes 

of estimating the impacts of prospective 

standards on product shipments (i.e., 

forecasting standards-case shipments) 

DOE accounted for the combined effects 

of changes in purchase price, annual 

operating cost, and household income 

on the consumer purchase decision. 

Table IV.10 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the shipments analysis for the 

November 2007 ANOPR, and the 

changes it made for today’s proposed 

rule. The most significant change 

pertains to CCWs. For the November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE analyzed CCWs as a 

single product class. For reasons 

described in section IV.A.2, DOE has 

decided to analyze CCWs as two 

product classes—top-loading and frontloading washers. The general approach 

for forecasting CCW shipments for 

today’s proposed rule remains 

unchanged from the 2007 ANOPR. That 

is, all CCW shipments (i.e., shipments 

for both product classes) were estimated 

for the new construction, replacement 

and non-replacement markets. The 

difference for today’s proposed rule is 

that after establishing forecasted 

product shipments for all CCWs, DOE 

allocated shipments to each of the two 

product classes based on the market 

share of each class. Based on data 

provided by AHAM for the 2007 

ANOPR, DOE estimated that top-loading 

washers comprise 80 percent of the 

market while front-loading washers 

comprise 20 percent. DOE estimated 

that the product class market shares 

would remain unchanged over the time 

period 2005–2042. A discussion of the 

inputs and the changes follows below. 

TABLE IV.10—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs 2007 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Number of Product Classes Cooking Products: Seven classes for conventional (i.e., 

non-microwave oven cooking products; one class for 

microwave ovens.

Cooking Products: No change. 

CCWs: Single product class ........................................... CCWs: Two product classes: top-loading washers and 

front-loading washers. Shipments forecasts established for all CCWs and then disaggregated into the 

two product classes based on the market share of 

top- and front-loading washers. Market share data 

provided by AHAM; 80% top-loading and 20% frontloading. Product class market shares held constant 

over time period of 2005–2042. 

New Construction Shipments Cooking Products: Determined by multiplying housing 

forecasts by forecasted saturation of cooking products for new housing. Housing forecasts based on 

AEO 2007 projections. New housing product saturations based on EIA’s RECS. Forecasted saturations 

maintained at 2001 levels.

Cooking Products: No change in approach. Housing 

forecasts updated with EIA AEO 2008 projections. 

CCWs: Determined by multiplying multi-housing forecasts by forecasted saturation of CCWs for new 

multi-housing. Multi-housing forecasts based on AEO 

2007 projections. New multi-housing product saturations calibrated against data from the Consortium for 

Energy Efficiency (CEE). Forecasted saturations 

maintained (frozen) at 1999 levels.

CCWs: Multi-housing forecasts updated with AEO 2008 

projections. Verified frozen saturations with data from 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey 

(AHS) for 1997–2005. 

Replacements ...................... Cooking Products: Determined by tracking total product 

stock by vintage and establishing the failure of the 

stock using retirement functions from the LCC and 

PBP analysis. Retirement functions were based on 

uniform lifetime distributions.

Cooking Products: No change in approach. Retirement 

functions revised to be based on Weibull lifetime distributions. 

CCWs: Determined by tracking total product stock by 

vintage and establishing the failure of the stock using 

retirement functions from the LCC and PBP analysis. 

Retirement functions were based on uniform lifetime 

distributions.

CCWs: No change in approach. Retirement functions 

revised to be based on Weibull lifetime distributions. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62070 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

66U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with 

Projections to 2030 (Feb. 2007) (DOE/EIA–0383 

(2007)). This document is available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. 

67Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Commercial 

Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of 

the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (1998). This 

document is available at: http://www.ceel.org/com/ 

cwsh/cwsh-main.php3. 

68 J. Goodman, The Upscale Apartment Market: 

Trends and Prospects (National Multi-Housing 

Council) (2001). 

TABLE IV.10—APPROACH AND DATA USED TO DERIVE THE INPUTS TO THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS—Continued 

Inputs 2007 ANOPR description Changes for the proposed rule 

Early Replacements (cooking products only).Used to calibrate Shipments Model to historical shipments data. Two percent of the surviving stock per 

year is retired early.

No change. 

Retired Units not Replaced 

(i.e., non-replacements) 

(CCWs only).

Used to calibrate Shipments Model to historical shipments data. Starting in 1999 and extending to 2005, 

estimated that 3 to 35% of retired units were not replaced. Gradually reduced the percentage of non-replacements to zero between 2006 and 2013.

Froze the percentage of non-replacements at 15 percent for the period 2006–2042. Revision was made 

to account for the increased saturation rate of in-unit 

washers in the multi-family stock between 1997 and 

2005 timeframe shown by the AHS. 

Historical Shipments ............ Cooking Products: Data sources include AHAM data 

submittal, AHAM Fact Book, and Appliance Magazine.

Cooking Products: No change. 

CCWs: Data sources include AHAM data submittal, Appliance Magazine, and U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis’ quantity index data for commercial laundry.

CCWs: No change. 

Purchase Price, Operating 

Cost, and Household Income impacts due to efficiency standards.

Developed the ‘‘relative price’’ elasticity which accounts 

for the purchase price and the present value of operating cost savings divided by household income. 

Used purchase price and efficiency data specific to 

residential refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers between 1980 and 2002 to determine a 

‘‘relative price’’ elasticity of demand, of ¥0.34.

No change. 

Fuel Switching ...................... Cooking Products: Not considered ................................. Cooking Products: No change. 

CCWs: Not applicable ..................................................... CCWs: Not applicable. 

a. New Construction Shipments 

To determine new construction 

shipments, DOE used forecasts of 

housing starts coupled with the product 

market saturation data for new housing. 

For new housing completions and 

mobile home placements, DOE used 

actual data through 2005, and adopted 

the projections from EIA’s AEO 2007 for 

2006–2030 for the November 2007 

ANOPR.66 DOE updated its housing 

projections for today’s proposed rule 

using AEO 2008. DOE used the 2001 

RECS to establish cooking product 

market saturations for new housing. For 

CCWs, DOE relied on new construction 

market saturation data from CEE.67

b. Replacements 

DOE estimated replacements using 

product retirement functions that it 

developed from product lifetimes. For 

the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE based 

the retirement function on a uniform 

probability distribution for the product 

lifetime. As discussed in section IV.E.6 

of this notice, DOE updated its product 

lifetime distributions for the LCC 

analysis using Weibull distributions. As 

a result, DOE also updated its retirement 

functions for the Shipments Model 

based on Weibull distributions. 

Cooking Products. To calibrate each 

Shipments Model against historical 

shipments, DOE established the early 

replacement market segment for cooking 

products. DOE determined for its 

November 2007 ANOPR that two 

percent of the surviving stock was 

replaced early. This finding was 

retained for today’s proposed rule. 

Commercial Clothes Washers. For the 

November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

determined that from 1988 to 1998, 

annual shipments of clothes washers 

stayed roughly in the range of 200,000 

to 230,000 units per year. But data 

provided by AHAM show a drop in 

shipments to approximately 180,000 

units in 2005. To calibrate its Shipments 

Model for the November 2007 ANOPR, 

DOE attributed this drop to nonreplacements (i.e., a portion of CCWs 

that were retired from service from 1999 

to 2005 were not replaced). Since DOE 

found no evidence that such nonreplacement would continue over time, 

it projected that overall shipments 

would recover and gradually increase 

after the drop witnessed between 1999 

and 2005 as stocks of existing machines 

are retired. DOE specifically sought 

feedback in the November 2007 ANOPR 

on its assumptions regarding the 

shipments forecasts for CCWs. 

AHAM, Alliance, Whirlpool, 

Southern Company (SC) and Miele 

argued that CCW shipments are likely to 

decrease further in the future. (AHAM, 

No. 32 at pp. 4, 11–12; Alliance, No. 26 

at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 28 at pp. 9–10; 

SCG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23.7 at pp. 179–180; and Miele, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 110– 

111) AHAM disagreed with DOE’s 

forecast of CCW shipments, arguing that 

future shipments will remain 

unchanged from historical values, if not 

somewhat reduced. AHAM stated that 

both the number of replacement units 

and the number of new common-area 

laundry units are decreasing. AHAM 

cited a study 68 by the National MultiHousing Council indicating that growth 

in multi-family housing is being driven 

in large part by high-end apartment 

complexes, which often include inapartment amenities such as clothes 

washers and dryers, and cited data from 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s American 

Housing Survey (AHS) showing growth 

in in-unit clothes washers (for rental 

units). The switch to in-unit laundry 

appliances in rental units results in a 

reduction of shared laundry areas, 

implying a corresponding reduction in 

CCW shipments. (AHAM, No. 32 at pp. 

4, 11–12) 

Alliance agreed that CCWs are 

increasingly competing with in-unit 

laundry products in multi-family 

housing. It cited information from the 

Multi-housing Laundry Association 

(MLA) stating that most recent multifamily new construction in California 

and Nevada accommodates in-unit 

washers and many existing properties of 

100 or more units are converting to inVerDate Aug<31>2005 19:46 Oct 16, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP3.SGM 17OCP3

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62071 

69RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data (30th Annual 

Edition) (2008) Op. cit. 

70Craftsman Book Company, 2008 National 

Repair & Remodeling Estimator (2008). Available 

for purchase at: http://craftsman-book.com/

products/index.php?main_page=cbc_product_

book_info&products_id=400. 

unit washers. Alliance supported 

AHAM’s conclusions about CCW 

shipments and urged DOE to revise its 

shipments forecast to approximate the 

recent downward trend in CCW 

shipments, or, at the very least, keep 

CCW shipments constant. (ALS, No. 26 

at p. 5) Whirlpool stated that CCW 

shipments are not increasing, and 

argued that an assumption of flat 

demand would be more realistic, adding 

that an alternative of declining demand 

should be explored to estimate the 

sensitivity of this assumption for overall 

energy savings. (Whirlpool, No. 28 at 

pp. 9–10) SC and Miele also stated that 

there is a trend toward multi-family 

residences using in-unit washers as 

opposed to common area laundry 

facilities. (SC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 179–180; 

Miele, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23.7 at pp. 110–111) 

The Joint Comment disagreed with 

the claims by AHAM, Whirlpool, and 

Alliance. The Joint Comment argued 

that Alliance cited no decline in CCW 

shipments when reporting to the SEC on 

‘‘trends and characteristics’’ in the 

North American market for its 

commercial laundry products. Rather, 

the Joint Comment stated that Alliance 

cited population growth as a ‘‘steady 

driver’’ for CCW shipments (i.e., 

suggesting that the DOE projection 

appears reasonable). (Joint Comment, 

No. 29 at p. 5) 

DOE appreciates the evidence that 

AHAM and Alliance have provided to 

illustrate the movement in multi-family 

buildings away from common-area 

laundry facilities to in-unit washers and 

dryers. To reevaluate its November 2007 

ANOPR shipments forecast, DOE 

verified AHAM’s conclusion regarding 

the AHS data, namely, that the stock of 

in-unit washers in the multi-family 

stock has increased 16 percent between 

1997 and 2005. DOE also found that 

from 1997 to 2005, the AHS shows that 

the saturation of in-unit washers in new 

multi-family construction has stayed 

relatively constant, varying only slightly 

between 76 and 80 percent. The 

implication is that CCW saturations in 

new multi-family construction also 

remained constant between 1997 and 

2005. This suggests that the growth in 

in-unit washer saturations in the multifamily stock over the last 10 years was 

likely caused by conversions of rental 

property to condominiums, resulting in 

the gradual phase-out or nonreplacement of failed CCWs in commonarea laundry facilities. Based on this 

apparent trend, DOE revised its 

November 2007 ANOPR estimate that 

CCW non-replacements would gradually 

phase-out by 2013. For today’s proposed 

rule, DOE used the average percent of 

non-replacements over the period 

between 1999 and 2005 (18 percent) and 

maintained it over the entire forecast 

period of 2006 to 2042. The effect of 

maintaining non-replacements at 18 

percent results in CCW shipments 

forecasts staying relatively flat between 

2006 and 2042. This is in contrast to the 

annual growth rate of two percent 

determined for the November 2007 

ANOPR. 

c. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and 

Household Income Impacts 

To estimate the combined effects on 

product shipments from increases in 

equipment purchase price and decreases 

in equipment operating costs due to 

new efficiency standards for the 

November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

conducted a literature review and a 

statistical analysis on a limited set of 

appliance price, efficiency, and 

shipments data. As the November 2007 

ANOPR describes, DOE used purchase 

price and efficiency data specific to 

residential refrigerators, clothes 

washers, and dishwashers between 1980 

and 2002 to conduct simple regression 

analyses. DOE’s analysis suggests that 

the relative price elasticity of demand, 

averaged over the three appliances, is 

¥0.34. Because DOE’s forecast of 

shipments and national impacts due to 

standards spans over 30 years, DOE 

considered how the relative price 

elasticity is affected once a new 

standard takes effect. After the purchase 

price change, price elasticity becomes 

more inelastic over the years until it 

reaches a terminal value—usually 

around the tenth year after the price 

change. DOE incorporated a relative 

price elasticity change that resulted in a 

terminal value of approximately onethird of the short-run elasticity (¥0.34). 

In other words, DOE determined that 

consumer purchase decisions, in time, 

become less sensitive to the initial 

change in the product’s relative price. 

DOE received no comments on its 

analysis to estimate the combined 

effects of increases in product purchase 

price and decreases in operating costs 

and, therefore, retained the analysis and 

the results for today’s proposed rule. 

Because the combined market of 

electric and gas cooking products is 

completely saturated, DOE assumed in 

the November 2007 ANOPR that electric 

and gas cooking product standard levels 

would neither affect base-case 

shipments nor cause shifts in electric 

and gas cooking product market shares 

for cooking products other than 

microwave ovens. Thus, DOE’s 

Shipments Model for electric and gas 

cooking products (i.e., conventional 

cooking products) does not incorporate 

use of a relative price elasticity. 

d. Fuel Switching 

AGA commented that it is likely that 

consumers will switch from gas to 

electric cooking products in the event 

that standing pilot ignition systems are 

eliminated. According to AGA, 

consumers who face rewiring costs 

when replacing a gas cooking product 

are likely to consider purchasing and 

rewiring for an all-electric cooking 

product. Therefore, AGA commented 

that DOE needs to analyze the 

likelihood of such fuel switching, 

including assessing the full fuel-cycle 

energy consumption and emission 

implications, and evaluating the 

tradeoffs between the costs of the wiring 

jobs and the first costs of competing gas 

and electric products. (AGA, No. 27 at 

p. 3) 

As section IV.E.2 of this notice 

describes, DOE estimated a cost of $235 

for installing an electrical outlet to 

accommodate a gas cooking product that 

needs electricity to operate. If a 

consumer were to switch from a gas 

cooking product to an electrical 

appliance due to the prospect of this 

installation cost, an outlet would still be 

needed to accommodate the electrical 

appliance. Based on the RS Means 

Mechanical Cost Data, 2008, the cost of 

installing only an outlet suitable for an 

electrical cooking appliance, which 

requires a 50-amp, 240-volt receptacle, 

is $305.69 Due to the amperage and 

voltage requirements of the receptacle as 

well as the age of the household in 

which the outlet would be installed 

(pre-1960), a separate branch circuit 

coming off the fuse box or circuit 

breaker panel would be necessary to 

accommodate the electrical cooking 

appliance. Also, because of the 

additional amperage required by the 

electrical cooking appliance, it is highly 

likely that the fuse box or circuit breaker 

panel would need to be upgraded. Based 

on material costs from the Craftsman 

2008 Repair & Remodeling Estimator 70

and labor costs for the RS Means, 

Mechanical Cost Data, 2008, DOE 

estimated an installation cost of $1247 

for installing a branch circuit and 

upgrading a breaker panel from 50 amps 

to 100 amps. Combined with the $305 

installation cost of the receptacle, the 

total installation cost to accommodate 

an electrical cooking appliance is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62072 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

estimated to be $1562 or over six times 

the cost of installing a standard 120-volt 

outlet for a gas cooking product. 

Therefore, there is no financial 

incentive for a consumer to switch from 

gas cooking to electric cooking. Thus, 

DOE believes the probability of fuel 

switching is so low that DOE is not 

considering it in today’s proposed rule. 

See chapter 11 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

details. 

3. Other Inputs 

The following is a discussion of the 

other inputs to the NIA and any 

revisions DOE made to those inputs for 

today’s proposed rule. 

a. Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies 

A key input to DOE’s estimates of 

NES and NPV are the energy efficiencies 

that DOE forecasts over time for the base 

case (without new standards) and each 

of the standards cases. The forecasted 

efficiencies represent the annual 

shipment-weighted energy efficiency 

(SWEF) of the products under 

consideration over the forecast period 

(i.e., from the estimated effective date of 

a new standard to 30 years after the 

standard becomes effective). Because 

key inputs to the calculation of the NES 

and NPV depend on the estimated 

efficiencies, they are of great importance 

to the analysis. In the case of the NES, 

the per-unit annual energy (and water) 

consumption is a direct function of 

product efficiency. Regarding the NPV, 

two inputs (the per-unit total installed 

cost and the per-unit annual operating 

cost), depend on efficiency. The perunit total installed cost is a direct 

function of efficiency. Because it is a 

direct function of the per-unit energy 

(and water) consumption, the per-unit 

annual operating cost depends 

indirectly on product efficiency. 

As section IV.D.9 of this notice 

discusses, DOE based its development 

of the product efficiencies in the base 

case on the assignment of equipment 

efficiencies in 2005. In other words, 

DOE determined the distribution of 

product efficiencies currently in the 

marketplace to develop a SWEF for 

2005. Using the SWEF as a starting 

point, DOE developed base-case 

forecasted efficiencies based on 

estimates of future efficiency growth. 

From 2005 to 2012 (2012 being the 

estimated effective date of a new 

standard), DOE estimated for the 

November 2007 ANOPR that there 

would be no growth in SWEF (i.e., no 

change in the distribution of product 

efficiencies). Because there are no 

historical data to indicate how product 

efficiencies have changed over time, 

DOE estimated that forecasted 

efficiencies would remain frozen at the 

2012 efficiency level until the end of the 

forecast period (i.e., 2042, or 30 years 

after the effective date). DOE did 

forecast the market share of gas standard 

ranges equipped with standing pilot 

lights to estimate the impact of 

eliminating standing pilot lights for gas 

cooktops and gas standard ovens. 

Although DOE recognizes the possibility 

that product efficiencies may change 

over time (e.g., due to voluntary 

efficiency programs such as ENERGY 

STAR), without historical information, 

DOE had no basis for speculating how 

these product efficiencies may change. 

AHAM commented that DOE’s 

approach to estimating forecasted basecase efficiencies was realistic. (AHAM, 

No. 32 at p. 12) For cooking products, 

Whirlpool also agreed with DOE’s 

approach because these products are not 

incentivized by transformation 

programs such as ENERGY STAR. 

Whirlpool stated that because a new 

standard was established for CCWs in 

2007, a change from that level is 

unlikely before 2012 due to product 

development cycles. Whirlpool would 

not speculate on changes in efficiency 

between 2012 and 2042; however, 

Whirlpool disagreed with DOE’s 

assumption of no change. Whirlpool 

added that voluntary market 

transformation programs, such as 

ENERGY STAR, have a proven track 

record of saving energy without 

standards, and one could reasonably 

assume that such programs will have at 

least the same impact going forward as 

they have had historically. (Whirlpool, 

No. 28 at p. 10) 

For today’s proposed rule, DOE 

maintained its approach of freezing 

forecasted efficiencies at the efficiency 

level estimated for 2012 for both 

residential cooking products and CCWs. 

For cooking products, the two 

stakeholders that did comment (AHAM 

and Whirlpool, as discussed above) 

agreed with DOE’s approach. Due to 

Whirlpool’s concerns regarding CCWs, 

DOE’s Building Technologies Program 

contacted the ENERGY STAR program 

within DOE to determine what actions 

are being undertaken to promote the 

adoption of more-efficient CCWs. CCWs 

have been a product covered under the 

ENERGY STAR program since 2000. But 

the program has not been able to 

monitor sales on ENERGY STARqualified products because 

manufacturers are not required to 

submit relevant data to ENERGY STAR. 

Also, because CCWs are not sold 

through a distribution channel 

involving appliance retailers, DOE 

believes that any market share estimates 

developed would be dubious. Without 

reliable data from which to estimate the 

impact of ENERGY STAR on CCW 

market efficiency, DOE has decided to 

retain its frozen efficiency forecasts for 

today’s proposed rule. This is a 

conservative estimate that will be taken 

into consideration when DOE weighs 

the benefits and burdens of TSLs. 

b. Standards-Case Forecasted 

Efficiencies 

For its determination of standardscase forecasted efficiencies, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario in the November 

2007 ANOPR to establish the SWEF for 

2012, the year that standards would 

become effective. DOE stated its 

expectation that product efficiencies in 

the base case, which did not meet the 

standard level under consideration, 

would roll-up to meet the new standard 

level. Also, DOE assumed that all 

product efficiencies in the base case that 

were above the standard level under 

consideration would not be affected 

(i.e., would not require or experience 

efficiency improvements as a result of a 

new energy efficiency standard). DOE 

made the same estimates regarding 

forecasted standards-case efficiencies as 

for the base case, namely, that 

forecasted efficiencies remained frozen 

at the 2012 efficiency level until the end 

of the forecast period, because DOE had 

no data to reasonably estimate how such 

efficiency levels might change over the 

next 30 years. By maintaining the same 

growth rate for forecasted efficiencies in 

the standards case as in the base case 

(i.e., zero or frozen growth), DOE 

retained a constant efficiency difference 

or gap between the two cases over the 

length of the forecast period. Although 

frozen trends may not reflect what 

happens to base-case and standards-case 

product efficiencies in the future, DOE 

nevertheless believes that maintaining a 

frozen efficiency difference between the 

base case and standards case provides a 

reasonable estimate of the impact that 

standards have on product efficiency. In 

other words, because the determination 

of national energy savings and national 

economic impacts are more reliant on 

the impact that standards have on 

product efficiency, it is more important 

to accurately estimate the product 

efficiency gap between the standards 

case and base case, rather than to 

accurately estimate the actual product 

efficiencies in the standards-case and 

base-case efficiency trends. To further 

explore this point, in the November 

2007 ANOPR, DOE specifically sought 

feedback on its estimates of forecasted 

standards-case efficiencies and its view 

of how standards affect product 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62073 

efficiency distributions in the year that 

standards take effect. 

The Joint Comment on the ANOPR 

stated that DOE’s roll-up assumption is 

inadequate for estimating impacts, 

especially for lower and mid-range 

candidate standard levels. According to 

the Joint Comment, new distributions of 

efficiency performance occur largely 

because ENERGY STAR has offered 

market distinction for higher efficiency 

products, while utilities and other 

efficiency program administrators have 

offered incentives for beyond-standards 

levels of performance. The Joint 

Comment argued that this process will 

become more important in the future, 

not less; this means consumers are 

buying an increasing number of 

products at levels significantly more 

efficient than Federal standards. For 

prior rulemakings, the Joint Comment 

argued that DOE has also evaluated a 

‘‘shift’’ scenario, which models savings 

if the distribution of efficiencies were to 

remain the same as the current 

distribution, but simply shift above a 

given new standard level. The Joint 

Comment stated that modeling both rollup and shift scenarios would enable 

DOE and stakeholders to better evaluate 

the impacts of a given standard level. 

(Joint Comment, No. 29 at pp. 4–5) 

Counter to the Joint Comment, both 

AHAM and Whirlpool concurred with 

DOE’s use of a roll-up assumption for 

estimating the impact of standards on 

product efficiencies. (AHAM, No. 32 at 

p. 12; Whirlpool, No. 28 at p. 10) 

As noted in Whirlpool’s comments, 

there are no market transformation 

programs such as ENERGY STAR for 

cooking products. Therefore, without 

the lure of a market transformation 

program like ENERGY STAR to promote 

the use of more-efficient cooking 

products beyond a particular standard 

level, DOE believes it is reasonable to 

estimate the impact of standards on the 

SWEF with only a roll-up scenario. 

As described above, CCWs are under 

the ENERGY STAR program, but there 

are no data on the impact that the 

program has had on market efficiency. 

In the case of top-loading washers, the 

base-case efficiency distribution 

specifies all but three percent of the toploading CCW market at either the 

baseline or 1.42 MEF/9.5 WF efficiency 

levels. Because the technological 

changes required to achieve higher 

efficiency levels are not currently being 

utilized in top-loading CCW designs, 

DOE estimates that standards would be 

unlikely to shift the top-loading CCW 

market to levels beyond minimum 

required efficiencies. In the case of 

front-loading washers, over 80 percent 

of the front-loading CCW market is 

already at an efficiency level of 2.00 

MEF/5.5 WF, which is nearly at the 

max-tech level of 2.35 MEF/4.4 WF. 

Therefore, the effects from a shift 

scenario for front-loading washers 

would not be significantly different than 

the effects from a roll-up scenario. That 

is, the increased energy and water 

savings resulting from moving the 

market to the max-tech level would be 

offset by the increased equipment and 

repair costs from that level. Because of 

the reasons stated above, for today’s 

proposed rule, DOE has analyzed only 

a roll-up scenario to establish the SWEF 

for top-loading and front-loading 

washers after new CCW standards 

would become effective. 

c. Annual Energy Consumption 

The inputs for determining NES are 

annual energy (and water) consumption 

per unit, shipments, equipment stock, 

national annual energy consumption, 

and site-to-source conversion factors. 

Because the annual energy (and water) 

consumption per unit depend directly 

on efficiency, DOE used the SWEFs 

associated with the base case and each 

standards case, in combination with the 

annual energy (and water use) data, to 

estimate the shipment-weighted average 

annual per-unit energy (and water) 

consumption under the base case and 

standards cases. The national energy 

consumption is the product of the 

annual energy consumption per unit 

and the number of units of each vintage. 

This calculation accounts for differences 

in unit energy consumption from year to 

year. 

The NIA uses forecasted shipments 

for the base case and all standards cases. 

As noted above in section IV.E.2.c, DOE 

used a relative price elasticity to 

estimate standards-case shipments for 

microwave ovens and CCWs, but not 

conventional cooking products. The 

increased total installed cost of moreefficient equipment causes some 

customers to forego equipment 

purchases. Consequently, shipments 

forecasted under the standards cases are 

lower than under the base case. To 

avoid the inclusion of savings from 

displaced shipments of microwave 

ovens, DOE used the standards-case 

shipments projection and the standardscase stock to calculate the annual energy 

consumption in the base case. However, 

for CCWs, DOE assumed any drop in 

shipments caused by standards would 

result in the purchase of used machines. 

As a result, the standards-case forecast 

explicitly accounted for the energy and 

water consumption of not only new 

standard-compliant CCWs but used 

equipment coming into the market due 

to the drop in new product shipments 

as well. Therefore, DOE maintained the 

use of the base-case shipments to 

determine the annual energy 

consumption in the base case. 

DOE’s November 2007 ANOPR 

analysis estimated that 0.23 quads of 

national energy savings would be 

associated with the elimination of 

standing pilot ignition systems in gas 

cooking products and the anticipated 

substitution of electric spark ignition for 

gas standard ovens. AGA asserted that 

the maximum energy savings would be 

less (0.06 quads over 30 years) and 

contended that the amount of energy 

saved from eliminating standing pilot 

ignition systems is not significant 

enough to warrant setting a standard 

that eliminates them. (AGA, No. 27 at 

pp. 2 and pp. 13–14) 

EEI compared the energy savings of 

eliminating standing gas pilots to the 

potential energy savings from a 

microwave oven standby power 

standard. According to EEI, DOE’s 

analysis shows that gas standby energy 

use in gas cooking products is a much 

more significant energy and cost issue 

than microwave oven standby energy 

use, and DOE should prioritize its 

methods and analysis to reduce standby 

gas energy usage. (EEI, No. 25 at pp. 2– 

3) 

DOE recognizes both AGA’s and EEI’s 

comments, but their input focused on 

how the agency should interpret the 

results of its energy savings analyses, 

rather than altering DOE’s methodology 

for estimating the national energy 

savings due to the elimination of 

standing pilots. As the November 2007 

ANOPR noted, DOE’s method accounted 

for the market share of gas cooking 

products with standing pilots. Based on 

historical trends in the shipments data, 

DOE forecasted a continual decline in 

the market share of gas cooking 

products with standing pilots. As 

described in section IV.D.9.a, DOE 

estimated that 17.6 percent of standard 

gas oven shipments and 6.8 percent of 

gas cooktop shipments would be 

equipped with standing pilots in 2012. 

The above percentages are based on all 

gas standard oven and cooktop 

shipments (i.e., shipments from both 

stand-alone or built-in products as well 

as kitchen ranges). Because DOE 

estimated that kitchen ranges are the 

only gas products that still come 

equipped with standing pilots, only 

standard ovens and cooktops in kitchen 

ranges comprise the percent of all 

standard ovens and cooktops that are 

still equipped with standing pilots. DOE 

estimated that approximately 14 percent 

of gas ranges in 2012 were equipped 

with standing pilots. Overall, a smaller 

percentage of gas cooktops are equipped 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62074 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

71For the standards rulemakings, DOE will 

generally use the same economic growth and 

development assumptions that underlie the most 

current AEO published by EIA. For its 

determination of site-to-source conversion factors, 

DOE used the version of NEMS corresponding to 

AEO 2006 for the ANOPR due to the unavailability 

of the AEO 2007 version at the time DOE conducted 

the NIA. For its analyses for the NOPR and final 

rule, DOE is committed to using the latest available 

version of NEMS. 

72An analytical tool equivalent to EIA’s NEMS 

would be needed to properly account for embedded 

energy impacts on a national scale, including the 

embedded energy due to water and wastewater 

savings. This new version of NEMS would need to 

analyze spending and energy use in dozens, if not 

hundreds, of economic sectors. This version of 

NEMS also would need to account for shifts in 

spending in these various sectors to account for the 

marginal embedded energy differences among these 

sectors. 72 FR 64432, 64498–99 (Nov. 15, 2007). 

DOE does not have access to such a tool or other 

means to accurately estimate the source energy 

savings impacts of decreased water or wastewater 

consumption and expenditures. 

73 DOE notes that the Joint Comment cites to a 

statutory section that does not exist (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 

6297(o). Instead, the Joint Comment presumably 

intended to cite 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII), 

which stands for the proposition presented. 

with standing pilots (6.8 percent) than 

standard gas ovens (17.6 percent) 

because there are far more stand-alone 

cooktop shipments than built-in 

standard oven shipments. DOE 

estimated a total market share of less 

than five percent by 2042 for gas 

cooking products with standing pilots. 

See chapter 11 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

details. By forecasting a declining 

market share of gas cooking products 

with standing pilots, DOE believes it 

accurately estimated the national energy 

savings due to energy efficiency 

standards that eliminate standing pilots. 

National energy savings results are 

presented below in section V.B.3.a. 

d. Site-to-Source Conversion 

Since it is necessary to estimate the 

national energy savings expected from 

appliance standards, DOE uses a 

multiplicative factor to convert site 

energy consumption (at the home or 

commercial building) into primary or 

source energy consumption (the energy 

required to deliver the site energy). In 

the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE used 

annual site-to-source conversion factors 

based on the version of NEMS that 

corresponds to AEO 2006. For today’s 

NOPR, DOE updated its conversion 

factors based on AEO 2008.71 These 

conversion factors account for natural 

gas losses from pipeline leakage and 

natural gas used for pumping energy 

and transportation fuel. For electricity, 

the conversion factors vary over time 

due to projected changes in generation 

sources (i.e., the power plant types 

projected to provide electricity to the 

country). Since the EIA’s AEO does not 

provide energy forecasts that go beyond 

2030, DOE used conversion factors that 

remain constant at the 2030 values 

throughout the remainder of the 

forecast. 

e. Embedded Energy in Water and 

Wastewater Treatment and Delivery 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

did not include the energy required for 

water treatment and delivery for the 

reasons that follow. EPCA defines 

‘‘energy use’’ to be ‘‘the quantity of 

energy directly consumed by a 

consumer product at point of use, 

determined in accordance with test 

procedures under section 6293 of [42 

U.S.C.].’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) (emphasis 

added) Based on the definition of 

‘‘energy use,’’ DOE does not believe it 

has the authority to consider embedded 

energy (i.e., the energy required for 

water treatment and delivery) in the 

analysis. Furthermore, even if DOE had 

the authority, it does not believe 

adequate analytical tools exist to 

conduct such an evaluation.72

f. Total Installed Costs and Operating 

Costs 

The total annual installed cost 

increase is equal to the annual change 

in the per-unit total installed cost (i.e., 

the difference between base case and 

standards case) multiplied by the 

shipments forecasted in the standards 

case. DOE did not change its approach 

for calculating total annual installed 

cost increases for today’s proposed rule. 

The annual operating cost savings per 

unit includes changes in energy, water, 

repair, and maintenance costs. DOE 

forecasted energy prices for the 

November 2007 ANOPR based on AEO 

2007 and updated the energy prices for 

today’s proposed rule using forecasts 

from AEO 2008. 

In the November 2007 ANOPR 

analysis, DOE believed there would be 

no increase in maintenance and repair 

costs due to standards. But as section 

IV.D.5 of this notice discusses, based 

upon public comments, DOE has 

accounted for the added repair and 

maintenance costs associated with nonstanding pilot ignition systems for 

today’s proposed rule. DOE has also 

included increases in repair and 

maintenance costs for more-efficient 

CCWs. 

g. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices 

In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

did not consider the potential impact of 

energy efficiency standards on energy 

prices. However, DOE did publish a 

final rule for residential furnaces and 

boilers rule in November 2007 that 

assessed the consumer benefits, in the 

form of reduced natural gas prices, from 

a 90-percent annual fuel utilization 

efficiency (AFUE) or higher standard for 

non-weatherized gas furnaces. 72 FR 

65136, 65152 (Nov. 19, 2007). The Joint 

Comment stated that because DOE 

conducted such an analysis for the 

furnace and boiler standards 

rulemaking, it must also evaluate gas 

and electricity price impacts in the 

context of the residential cooking 

product and CCW rulemaking. The Joint 

Comment further stated that DOE 

should consider the impact of standards 

on gas and electricity prices as a factor 

for economic justification, arguing that 

‘‘NAECA authorizes the Secretary to 

account for other, non-enumerated 

factors that he determines are relevant 

(42 U.S.C. 6297(o)).’’ 73 (Joint Comment, 

No. 29 at p. 12) 

In response, DOE did conduct an 

analysis using a version of the 2008 

NEMS–BT, modified to account for 

energy savings associated with possible 

standards. The analysis estimated that 

gas and electric demand reductions 

resulting from max-tech standards for 

residential cooking products and CCWs 

had no detectable change on the U.S. 

average wellhead natural gas price or 

the average user price of electricity. 

Therefore, DOE concludes that 

residential cooking product and CCW 

standards will not provide additional 

consumer benefits over those 

determined in the NIA. See chapter 11 

of the TSD accompanying this notice for 

more details. 

h. Discount Rates 

DOE multiplies monetary values in 

future years by the discount factor to 

determine the present value. The Joint 

Comment stated that societal discount 

rates are the subject of extensive 

academic research and that the weight 

of academic opinion is that the 

appropriate societal discount rate is 

three percent or less. (Joint Comment, 

No. 29 at p. 12) DOE estimated national 

impacts using both a three-percent and 

a seven-percent real discount rate as the 

average real rate of return on private 

investment in the U.S. economy. DOE 

uses these discount rates in accordance 

with guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A–4 

(Sept. 17, 2003), section E, ‘‘Identifying 

and Measuring Benefits and Costs’’). 

Chapters 10 and 11 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice provide 

additional detail on the shipments and 

national impacts analyses for the two 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62075 

appliance products subject to further 

analyses as part of this rulemaking. 

F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

individual and commercial consumers, 

DOE evaluates the impact on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard level. 

DOE used RECS data to analyze the 

potential effect of standards for 

residential cooking products on two 

consumer subgroups of interest: (1) 

Households with low income levels, 

and (2) households occupied by seniors. 

In addition, DOE received public 

comments that identified other specific 

consumer subgroups that could 

potentially be affected by the 

elimination of standing pilot ignition 

systems. According to AGA, Amish 

communities, which do not allow the 

use of electricity, have gas products that 

use either propane or natural gas. AGA 

stated that religious and cultural 

prohibitions regarding electricity use by 

certain groups in the U.S. are well 

understood and that this was the reason 

for the original EPCA language requiring 

electronic ignition only on gas cooking 

products with other electrical features. 

In addition, AGA claimed that this 

consideration was the reason for the 

exception to not ban standing pilot 

lights on gravity gas-fired boilers (which 

have no electrical supply) in EISA 2007. 

(AGA, No. 27 at p. 2) However, EEI 

argued that the Amish communities as 

a subgroup are extremely small, so it 

would be very difficult for DOE to 

analyze this subset. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23.7 at pp. 198–99) EEI 

estimated that 50,000 families (0.04 

percent of U.S. households) do not use 

electricity in their homes and may use 

natural gas, propane, kerosene, or wood 

for cooking purposes. (EEI, No. 5 at pp. 

3–4) 

DOE reviewed the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s 2005 AHS and found that 

approximately 13,000 households, 

representing 0.01 percent of the total 

U.S. household population, use gas 

cooking products and are without 

electricity. Although it is unknown 

whether this subset of the U.S. 

household population includes Amish 

households, DOE does not doubt that 

Amish households would be affected by 

the elimination of standing pilots. DOE 

has contacted the Mennonite 

Information Center, the Young Center at 

Elizabethtown College, and businesses 

that sell gas appliances to the Amish 

community in Lancaster County, 

Pennsylvania and verified that Amish 

households do use gas-only cooking 

products. But, as section IV.A.1 

discusses, DOE market research shows 

that battery-powered electronic ignition 

systems have been implemented in 

other products, such as instantaneous 

gas water heaters, barbeques, furnaces, 

and other appliances, and the use of 

such products is not expressly 

prohibited by applicable safety 

standards such as ANSI Z21.1. 

Therefore, DOE believes that 

households that use gas for cooking and 

are without electricity will have 

technological options that would enable 

them to continue to use gas cooking if 

standing pilot ignition systems are 

eliminated. Because the subgroup 

consisting of households without 

electricity will still have technological 

options for continuing to use gas 

cooking products even if standing pilots 

are eliminated, DOE believes that this 

subgroup will not be adversely 

impacted by an efficiency standard 

requiring the elimination of standing 

pilots. 

Another consumer subgroup 

stakeholders identified is low-income 

households. GE stated that eliminating 

gas pilot ranges would cause hardship 

for most households using these 

products, since the majority of these 

products are used in Federally 

sponsored and municipally sponsored 

low-income and low-cost housing. GE 

argued that requiring these households 

to wire themselves to accommodate a 

gas range with electronic ignition would 

be cost prohibitive. (GE, No. 30 at pp. 

2–4) EEI commented that DOE may 

want to identify the percentage of lowincome consumers that use equipment 

with standing pilots. (EEI, No. 5 at p. 4) 

DOE was not able to verify GE’s claim 

(submitted without data) that the 

majority of gas pilot ranges are used in 

Federally sponsored and municipally 

sponsored low-income housing, 

because, for example, the RECS data 

that DOE uses for its consumer 

subgroup analysis lack sufficient detail. 

DOE analyzed the potential effects of 

CCW standards on two subgroups: (1) 

Consumers not served by municipal 

water and sewer providers, and (2) 

small businesses. For consumers not 

served by water and sewer, DOE 

analyzed the potential impacts of 

standards by conducting the analysis 

with well and septic system prices, 

rather than water and wastewater prices 

based on RFC/AWWA data. For small 

CCW businesses, DOE analyzed the 

potential impacts of standards by 

conducting the analysis with different 

discount rates, because small businesses 

do not have the same access to capital 

as larger businesses. DOE estimated that 

for businesses purchasing CCWs, the 

average discount rate for small 

companies is 3.5 percent higher than the 

industry average. Due to the higher costs 

of conducting business, as evidenced by 

their higher discount rates, the benefits 

of CCW standards for small businesses 

will be less than the general population 

of CCW owners. 

More details on the subgroup analysis 

and the results can be found in chapter 

12 of the TSD accompanying this notice. 

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. General Description 

In determining whether a standard for 

either of the two appliance products 

subject to further analyses as part of this 

rulemaking is economically justified, 

the Secretary of Energy is required to 

consider ‘‘the economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and on 

the consumers of the products subject to 

such standard.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and 6316(a)) The 

statute also calls for an assessment of 

the impact of any lessening of 

competition as determined by the 

Attorney General. (42 U.S.C. 6295 

(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a)) DOE 

conducted the MIA to estimate the 

financial impact of higher efficiency 

standards on manufacturers of the two 

appliance products, and to assess the 

impact of such standards on 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity. 

The MIA has both quantitative and 

qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash-flow model customized 

for this rulemaking. The GRIM inputs 

characterize the industry cost structure, 

shipments, and revenues. This includes 

information from many of the analyses 

described above, such as manufacturing 

costs and prices from the engineering 

analysis and shipments forecasts. The 

key GRIM output is the INPV, which 

estimates the value of the industry on 

the basis of cash flows, expenditures, 

and investment requirements as a 

function of TSLs. Different sets of 

assumptions (scenarios) will produce 

different results. The qualitative part of 

the MIA addresses factors such as 

product characteristics, characteristics 

of particular firms, and market and 

product trends, and includes an 

assessment of the impacts of standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers. The 

complete MIA is outlined in chapter 13 

of the TSD accompanying this notice. 

In the Framework Document for this 

proceeding, notice of which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 27, 2006, DOE outlined the 

procedural and analytical approaches to 

be used in the MIA. (71 FR 15059) In the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62076 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

74Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

schedule_setting.html. 

75Available at: http:// 

www2.standardandpoors.com/. 

76The SBA classifies a residential cooking 

appliance manufacturer as a small business if it has 

less than 750 employees. Refer to: http:// 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/ 

sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

November 2007 ANOPR for this 

rulemaking, DOE reported some 

preliminary MIA information and data 

in section II.K. 72 FR 64432, 64505–07 

(Nov. 15, 2007). In response to these 

preliminary data, the November 2007 

ANOPR, and DOE statements at the 

December public meeting, DOE received 

specific comments on the MIA, which 

are addressed in this section. In 

previous energy conservation standards 

rulemakings, DOE did not report any 

MIA results during the ANOPR phase of 

the rulemaking. However, under a new 

MIA format announced through a report 

issued to Congress on January 31, 2006, 

‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Activities’’ 74 (as required by section 141 

of EPACT 2005), DOE now reports 

preliminary MIA information at the 

ANOPR stage, as was done in the 

November 2007 ANOPR. 

DOE conducted the MIA for cooking 

products and CCWs in three phases. 

Phase 1 (Industry Profile) characterized 

the industry using data on market share, 

sales volumes and trends, pricing, 

employment, and financial structure. 

Phase 2 (Industry Cash Flow) focused 

on each industry as a whole. In this 

phase, DOE used the GRIM to prepare 

an industry cash-flow analysis. Using 

publicly available information 

developed in Phase 1, DOE adapted the 

GRIM’s generic structure to perform an 

analysis of cooking product and CCW 

energy conservation standards. In Phase 

3 (Subgroup Impact Analysis), DOE 

conducted interviews with 

manufacturers representing the majority 

of domestic cooking product and CCW 

sales. This group included large and 

small manufacturers, thereby providing 

a representative cross-section of the two 

industries. 

During these interviews, DOE 

discussed engineering, manufacturing, 

procurement, and financial topics 

specific to each company and obtained 

each manufacturer’s view of the 

industry as a whole. The interviews 

provided valuable information that DOE 

used to evaluate the impacts of an 

amended energy conservation standard 

on manufacturers’ cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and 

employment levels. DOE identified 

subgroups of manufacturers during 

interviews with manufacturers of 

cooking products and CCWs. The 

manufacturer subgroups are described 

in section IV.G.1.c. of this notice. 

a. Phase 1 (Industry Profile) 

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a profile of the cooking products and 

CCW industries based on the market 

and technology assessment prepared for 

this rulemaking. Before initiating the 

detailed impact studies, DOE collected 

information on the present and past 

structure and market characteristics of 

the cooking products and CCW 

industries. The information DOE 

collected included market share, 

equipment shipments, markups, and 

cost structure for various manufacturers. 

The industry profile includes: (1) 

Further detail on product 

characteristics; (2) estimated 

manufacturer market shares; (3) the 

financial situation of manufacturers; 

and (4) trends in the number of firms, 

the market, and product characteristics 

of the cooking products and CCW 

industries. 

The industry profile included a topdown cost analysis of cooking products 

and CCW manufacturers that DOE used 

to derive cost and preliminary financial 

inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; 

material, labor, overhead, and 

depreciation expenses; selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (SG&A); 

and research and development (R&D) 

expenses). DOE also used public sources 

of information to further calibrate its 

initial characterization of each industry, 

including SEC 10–K reports, Standard & 

Poor’s (S&P) stock reports,75 and 

corporate annual reports. DOE 

supplemented this public information 

with data released by privately held 

companies. 

b. Phase 2 (Industry Cash-Flow 

Analysis) 

Phase 2 of the MIA focused on the 

financial impacts of new energy 

conservation standards on the industry 

as a whole. Higher energy conservation 

standards can affect a manufacturer’s 

cash flow in three distinct ways, 

resulting in: (1) A need for increased 

investment; (2) higher production costs 

per unit; and (3) altered revenue by 

virtue of higher per-unit prices and 

changes in sales volumes. To quantify 

these impacts in Phase 2 of the MIA, 

DOE performed three separate cash-flow 

analyses, using the GRIM: One for the 

conventional cooking products industry, 

one for microwave ovens, and one for 

CCWs. In performing these analyses, 

DOE used the financial values derived 

during Phase 1 and the shipment 

scenarios used in the NIA. 

c. Phase 3 (Subgroup Impact Analysis) 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

is not adequate for assessing differential 

impacts among subgroups of 

manufacturers. For example, small or 

niche manufacturers, or manufacturers 

whose cost structure differs significantly 

from the industry average, could be 

more negatively affected. DOE used the 

results of the industry characterization 

analysis from Phase 1 to group 

manufacturers that exhibit similar 

characteristics. In the Framework 

Document and November 2007 ANOPR, 

DOE invited stakeholders to comment 

on the manufacturing subgroups that it 

should analyze for the MIA. 

Cooking Products Subgroup: Small 

manufacturers of cooking products with 

standing pilot lights. DOE identified 

three manufacturers of gas-fired ovens, 

ranges, and cooktops with standing pilot 

lights. Two of the three manufacturers 

are classified as small businesses by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA). 

DOE categorized the two small 

businesses into their own subgroup as a 

result of their size and their 

concentration in the residential cooking 

industry. Both manufacturers produce 

gas-fired appliances with standing pilot 

ignition systems and derive over 25 

percent of their total revenue from gasfired appliances with standing pilot 

ignition systems. Both small 

manufacturers produce only residential 

cooking appliances and have annual 

sales in the $50–60 million range, 

whereas the third is a large, diversified 

appliance manufacturer. The two small 

cooking businesses are privately held, 

and each employs less than 300 

employees.76 DOE contacted both small 

cooking product businesses it identified 

to discuss differential impacts due to 

the elimination of standing pilot lights. 

DOE also interviewed the large 

manufacturer of gas-fired ovens, ranges, 

and cooktops with standing pilot lights. 

Commercial Clothes Washers 

Subgroup. DOE identified three 

manufacturers that represent nearly 100 

percent of CCW shipments. For CCWs, 

DOE categorized one manufacturer as its 

own subgroup because of its focus on 

the commercial laundry business. Due 

to the low shipment volumes in the 

CCW market and the much lower 

revenues of this manufacturer compared 

to its competitors, DOE identified this 

manufacturer as a ‘‘Low-Volume 

Manufacturer’’ (LVM) for its MIA 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62077 

77The SBA classifies a commercial laundry 

equipment manufacturer as a small business if it 

has less than 500 employees. Refer to: http:// 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/ 

sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

78 ‘‘Gross margin’’ is defined as revenues minus 

cost of goods sold. On a unit basis, gross margin is 

selling price minus manufacturer production cost. 

In the GRIMs, markups determine the gross margin 

because various markups are applied to the 

manufacturer production costs to reach 

manufacturer selling price. 

subgroup analysis. In 2006, the LVM 

derived 87 percent of its clothes washer 

revenues from CCW sales, while CCW 

sales for each of its two main 

competitors represent less than one 

percent of their individual total clothes 

washer sales. Thus, the LVM fits the 

description of a niche manufacturer, 

even though in 2006 it had over 

$330 million in revenue and 1,500 

employees. As discussed above, its two 

main competitors in the CCW market 

are diversified appliance manufacturers 

that each earns at least 50 times more 

revenue than the LVM on an annual 

basis. The LVM has successfully 

maintained its significant CCW market 

share despite its much smaller overall 

revenue base. DOE estimates that the 

LVM currently accounts for 

approximately 45 percent of CCW 

shipments. DOE described the 

differential cost impacts of new energy 

conservation standards on the LVM in 

the engineering analysis contained in 

the November 2007 ANOPR. (See 

Chapter 5 and Appendix 5–A of the TSD 

accompanying the November 2007 

ANOPR.) The LVM does not qualify as 

a small business since it has over 1,000 

employees.77

Compared to their larger competitors, 

both small cooking products businesses 

are highly concentrated in residential 

cooking appliance manufacturing, and 

the CCW LVM is highly concentrated in 

commercial laundry. Unlike their larger 

competitors, they operate at a much 

smaller scale and do not manufacture 

products across a broad range of 

industries. Thus, the potential impacts 

of this rulemaking on the small cooking 

products businesses and the CCW LVM 

could be disproportionate compared to 

the impacts on their large, diversified 

competitors. As a result, DOE performed 

an in-depth analysis of the issues facing 

the small cooking products businesses 

and the CCW LVM. (See chapter 13 and 

appendix 13–A of the TSD 

accompanying this notice.) The 

following paragraphs describe in detail 

the steps DOE took in developing the 

information for the MIA. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Analysis 

As mentioned above, DOE uses the 

GRIM to quantify anticipated changes in 

cash flow that may result in a higher or 

lower industry value, which arise from 

potential energy conservation standards. 

The GRIM analysis uses a standard, 

annual cash-flow analysis that 

incorporates manufacturer prices, 

manufacturing costs, shipments, and 

industry financial information as inputs 

and models changes in costs, 

distribution of shipments, investments, 

and associated margins that would 

result from new regulatory conditions 

(in this case, standard levels). The GRIM 

spreadsheet uses a number of inputs to 

arrive at a series of annual cash flows, 

beginning with the base year of the 

analysis (2007) and continuing to 2042. 

DOE calculated INPVs by summing the 

stream of annual discounted cash flows 

during this period. 

DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash 

flows using standard accounting 

principles and to compare changes in 

INPV between a base case and different 

TSLs (the standards cases). Essentially, 

the difference in INPV between the base 

case and a standards case represents the 

financial impact of the new energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers. DOE collected this 

information from several sources, 

including publicly available data and 

interviews with a number of 

manufacturers. See chapter 13 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice for 

details. 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios and Key Inputs 

Base-Case Shipments Forecast. The 

GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues 

based on total unit shipment forecasts 

and the distribution of these values by 

efficiency level. Changes in the 

efficiency mix at each standard level 

affect manufacturer finances. For this 

analysis, the GRIM used the NIA 

shipments forecasts from 2007 to 2042. 

In the shipments analysis, DOE also 

estimated the distribution of efficiencies 

in the base case for all product classes. 

In interviews, manufacturers of all 

product classes generally agreed with 

the NIA total shipment results. 

Standards-Case Shipments Forecast. 

For each standards case, DOE considers 

that shipments at efficiencies below the 

projected minimum standard levels 

would roll up to those efficiency levels 

in response to an increase in energy 

conservation standards. This scenario 

assumes that demand for high-efficiency 

equipment is a function of price, 

independent of the standard level. See 

chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice for additional details. 

For CCWs, DOE uses a shipment 

scenario that considers the impacts of 

changes in relative prices on consumer 

demand for each product to bound the 

impacts of standards on manufacturers. 

As described in the discussion of 

purchase price, operating cost, and 

household income impacts found in the 

shipments model in chapter 10 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice, this 

shipment scenario estimates how the 

combined effects of increases in 

purchase price and decreases in 

operating costs due to new energy 

conservation standards affect 

shipments. In the ‘‘price elasticity of 

demand’’ shipment scenario, the effects 

from the increase in product purchase 

prices offset the effects from decreased 

operating costs, resulting in a net 

decrease in shipments. 

Base-Case and New Energy 

Conservation Standards Markup 

Scenarios. In the GRIM, markups are 

applied to the manufacturer production 

costs (MPCs) to calculate manufacturing 

selling price. After discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE analyzed two 

distinct markup scenarios: (1) A 

preservation of gross margin 78

(percentage) scenario; and (2) a 

preservation of gross margin (in absolute 

dollars) scenario. 

DOE modeled the preservation of 

gross margin percentage scenario in all 

three GRIMs. Under this scenario, DOE 

applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin 

percentage’’ markup across all efficiency 

levels. As production cost increases 

with efficiency, this scenario implies 

that the absolute dollar markup will 

increase. DOE calculated that the nonproduction cost markup (which consists 

of SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, 

interest, and profit) is 1.26. This markup 

is consistent with the one DOE used in 

the engineering analysis and GRIM 

analysis for the base case. In their 

interviews, all manufacturers believe it 

is optimistic to assume that, as their 

production costs increase in response to 

an energy conservation standard, they 

would be able to maintain the same 

gross margin percentage markup. 

Therefore, DOE believes that this 

scenario represents a high bound to 

industry profitability under an energy 

conservation standard. 

During interviews, multiple 

manufacturers of microwave ovens and 

conventional cooking products stated 

that they have not been able to fully 

recover the increased costs from 

increased raw material prices. Instead, 

manufacturers were only able to recover 

part of the total increase in production 

cost. Several manufacturers suggested 

that a similar situation would happen as 

a result of new energy conservation 

standards. In the ‘‘preservation of gross 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62078 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

79Available at: http://www.bls.gov/PPI/. 

80Available at: http://www.bls.gov. 

margin (absolute dollars)’’ scenario, 

gross margin is defined as ‘‘revenues 

less cost of goods sold.’’ The implicit 

assumption behind this markup 

scenario is that the industry will lower 

its markups in response to the standards 

to maintain only its gross margin (in 

absolute dollars). This means the 

percentage difference between MPC and 

selling price will decrease in the 

standards case compared to the base 

case and the gross margin percentage 

will be lower. The industry would do so 

by passing through its increased 

production costs to customers, while 

increased R&D and selling, general, and 

administrative expenses directly lower 

profit. DOE implemented this scenario 

in the microwave oven and 

conventional cooking products GRIMs 

by lowering the production cost 

markups for each TSL to yield 

approximately the same gross margin in 

dollars in the standards cases in the year 

standard are effective (2012) as is 

yielded in the base case. This scenario 

is less optimistic than the preservation 

of gross margin percentage scenario. 

Product and Capital Conversion 

Costs. Energy conservation standards 

typically cause manufacturers to incur 

one-time conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance with the new 

standards. For the purpose of the MIA, 

DOE classified these one-time 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

expenses are one-time investments in 

research, development, testing, and 

marketing, focused on making product 

designs comply with the new energy 

conservation standard. Capital 

conversion expenditures are one-time 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment to adapt or change existing 

production facilities so that new 

product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. 

DOE assessed the R&D expenditures 

manufacturers would be required to 

make at each TSL. For microwave ovens 

(EF standards) and conventional 

cooking products, DOE obtained 

financial information through 

manufacturer interviews and aggregated 

the data to prevent disclosure of 

proprietary or confidential information. 

For all product classes at each TSL, DOE 

considered these manufacturer 

responses. DOE estimated average 

industry product conversion 

expenditures by weighting these data by 

market share and, finally, extrapolated 

each manufacturer’s R&D expenditures 

for each product. Where manufacturers 

did not comment, DOE used the 

conversion expenditures estimated in 

the 1996 TSD, updated by current 

production volumes and the PPI.79 For 

CCW and standby power standards for 

microwave ovens, DOE used 

manufacturer interviews to determine 

the cost of upgrading a product 

platform. DOE used interviews and 

product catalogs to estimate the number 

of product platforms that needed to be 

upgraded at each TSL to obtain its 

estimates for the conversion costs of the 

entire industry. 

DOE also evaluated the level of 

capital conversion costs manufacturers 

would incur in order to comply with 

amended energy conservation 

standards. For conventional cooking 

products, DOE initially revised the 

conversion capital expenditure figures 

in the 1996 TSD with current 

manufacturing volume projections and 

2007 PPI figures.80 During interviews, 

DOE asked manufacturers to comment 

on the figures, which DOE subsequently 

revised based on these responses. For 

microwave ovens and CCWs, DOE 

prepared preliminary estimates of the 

capital investments required at each 

TSL, which is affected in part by the 

ability to use existing plants, 

warehouses, tooling, and equipment. 

From the interviews and information in 

product catalogs, DOE was able to 

estimate what portion of existing 

manufacturing assets would need to be 

replaced and/or reconfigured, and what 

additional manufacturing assets would 

be required to manufacture the higherefficiency products. In most cases, DOE 

projects that if standard levels were 

increased, the proportion of existing 

assets that manufacturers would have to 

replace would also increase. Additional 

information on the estimated product 

conversion and capital conversion costs 

is set forth in chapter 13 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

As noted above, as part of the MIA, 

DOE discussed potential impacts of 

standards with multiple manufacturers. 

As section IV.G.1 of this notice 

describes, DOE conducted MIA 

interviews on multiple occasions with 

the three manufacturers representing 

nearly 100 percent of domestic CCW 

sales. These interviews were in addition 

to those DOE conducted as part of the 

engineering analysis. After the 

December 2007 public meeting, DOE 

also interviewed multiple cooking 

product manufacturers about microwave 

ovens, as well as conventional gas and 

electric cooking products. Data from the 

analysis indicated that the combined 

market share of these manufacturers 

represents 25 to 82 percent of unit 

shipments, depending on the specific 

cooking product category. For certain 

issues relating to standby power, DOE 

also interviewed subject-matter experts. 

All interviews provided information 

that DOE used to evaluate the impacts 

of potential new energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers’ cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and 

employment levels. 

Most of the information received from 

these meetings is protected by nondisclosure agreements and resides with 

DOE’s contractors. Before each 

telephone interview or site visit, DOE 

provided company representatives with 

an interview guide that included the 

topics for which DOE sought input. As 

the November 2007 ANOPR describes, 

the MIA interview topics included key 

issues relevant to the rulemaking, 

including: (1) Product mix; (2) 

profitability; (3) conversion costs; (4) 

manufacturing capacity and 

employment levels; (5) market share and 

industry consolidation; (6) product 

utility and innovation; and (7) 

cumulative burden issues. Appendix 13- 

B of the TSD accompanying this notice 

provides copies of the discussion 

guides. 

a. Conventional Cooking Products 

During the manufacturer interviews in 

the November 2007 ANOPR phase, 

conventional cooking product 

manufacturers raised three key issues: 

(1) Continuing intense price 

competition and an inability to pass on 

cost increases, (2) financial and 

consumer utility impacts of standby 

power standards, and (3) consumer 

utility and economic/industry impacts 

of eliminating standing pilot ignition 

systems for gas-fired appliances. DOE 

requested additional information on 

these key issues during manufacturer 

interviews during the NOPR phase. 

Additional topics raised by 

manufacturers of conventional cooking 

products during the NOPR-phase 

interviews included: (1) The validity, 

cost-effectiveness, and potential 

efficiency improvements of design 

options; (2) the disproportionate effect 

of energy efficiency standards on 

manufacturer and consumer subgroups; 

(3) factors that affect the INPV; and (4) 

the expected financial and consumer 

utility impacts of potential standby 

power standards. 

Multiple manufacturers cited price 

competition and the inability to pass on 

increased costs to consumers as their 

primary concern. DOE sought comment 

from appliance manufacturers on the 

potential consumer utility impacts as a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62079 

81Refer to: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

furnaces_boilers.html. 

result of standby power standards for 

conventional cooking products. In 

addition, a low standby power standard 

could result in a lack of product 

differentiation, harming manufacturers’ 

profitability. 

DOE sought comment regarding the 

potential elimination of standing pilot 

ignition systems from gas-fired cooking 

products, with replacement by 

electronic ignition systems using a spark 

or glo-bar igniter. (See chapter 5 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice for a 

further description.) Manufacturers of 

gas cooking products with standing 

pilot lights stated that there are several 

issues regarding the potential 

elimination of standing pilot lights, 

including: (1) The consumer utility of 

standing pilot ignition systems for 

customers without line power (for 

religious, economic, or other reasons); 

(2) likely retrofitting of standing pilotequipped equipment with non-certified 

ignition devices, which may be unsafe; 

(3) the retrofit costs are higher than DOE 

projects for consumers without an 

electrical outlet nearby; and (4) 

competitive impacts on the industry. 

Furthermore, interviews highlighted 

that two small businesses will be 

impacted disproportionately from 

elimination of pilot lights and could be 

harmed materially. Both small cooking 

appliance manufacturers stated that the 

elimination of the standing pilot option 

for their gas ranges would likely cause 

substantial harm, since standing pilotequipped products represent more than 

25 percent of their total revenues. DOE 

agrees that because the small businesses 

focus solely on the manufacture of 

residential cooking products, these two 

manufacturers could be affected to a 

greater extent than their larger 

competitors by a potential energy 

conservation standard that eliminates 

standing pilots. 

For conventional cooking products, 

DOE interviewed manufacturers about 

the design options that were presented 

in the November 2007 ANOPR, which 

were based on those identified in the 

1996 TSD. All manufacturers stated that 

their current cooking product designs 

are optimized for cost and performance, 

and thus any design options not already 

incorporated were deemed unlikely to 

save any significant energy. According 

to manufacturers, new design options 

would also result in significant upfront 

price increases and/or consumer utility 

issues because even purchased part 

substitutions result in substantial costs 

due to reliability, safety, and other 

necessary testing. During the MIA, DOE 

also sought to verify consumer 

subgroup(s) that could be 

disproportionately affected by this 

rulemaking. One manufacturer noted 

that some religious groups generally 

prohibit the use of line-powered 

appliances and that previous 

rulemakings (such as furnaces and 

boilers 81) have included special 

provisions for such consumer subcategories. See section IV.F of this 

notice for further discussion of the 

consumer subgroup analysis conducted 

for the NOPR. 

DOE solicited comments from 

manufacturers about the likely impact 

on profitability, unit shipments, 

markups, and other factors that 

determine the INPV. Multiple 

manufacturers stated that energy 

conservation standards have the 

potential to significantly harm 

profitability because high-end cooking 

products typically have higher profit 

margins than entry-level appliances. 

Also, features that differentiate high-end 

appliances from lower-end appliances 

may be eliminated or become 

commonplace as a result of energy 

efficiency standards. Several 

manufacturers stated it is impossible to 

pass along cost increases to customers 

because of the competitive nature of the 

industry. Any cost increase due to 

standards set by DOE would thus 

automatically lower profit margins. One 

manufacturer expects greater foreign 

competition if standards force design 

options currently found only on highend cooking products downward in the 

market, because the required redesign 

would eliminate the competitive 

advantage of domestic firms. DOE 

research suggests that the markups for 

low- and high-end cooking products 

differ (i.e., margins on high-end 

products tend to be higher than the 

margins on low-end products). 

b. Microwave Ovens 

During interviews in the November 

2007 ANOPR phase with microwave 

oven manufacturers, DOE identified two 

key issues: (1) Continuing intense price 

competition and an inability to pass on 

cost increases, and (2) financial and 

consumer utility impacts of standby 

power standards. Additional topics 

raised by microwave oven 

manufacturers during the NOPR-phase 

interviews included: (1) The validity 

and cost-effectiveness of design options, 

(2) factors that determine the INPV; and 

(3) microwave oven test procedure 

issues. 

All manufacturers noted that most 

microwave oven manufacturing has 

moved overseas due to intense price 

competition and commoditization of 

this product category. Two 

manufacturers stated that they still 

wholly manufacture or assemble 

microwave ovens from components 

domestically, though the market share 

of these shipments is low compared to 

total industry shipments. All 

manufacturers stated the difficulty of 

passing any price increases (due to raw 

material costs, for example) on to 

consumers and they expect any energy 

conservation standard to further cut into 

manufacturer profits. 

DOE sought comment on the various 

pathways that manufacturers could elect 

to pursue to meet proposed standby 

power consumption limits. Multiple 

pathways exist, based on the selection 

of the (1) display technology, (2) power 

supply/control boards, (3) cooking 

sensors, and (4) the possible 

incorporation of algorithms to 

automatically reduce standby power 

after a period of inactivity (the max-tech 

option). 

All microwave oven manufacturers 

that DOE interviewed noted that the 

choice of display technology is an 

important differentiator in the 

marketplace. DOE research suggests 

that, if constantly active, VFD displays 

of the type commonly found in 

microwave ovens are unlikely to meet a 

standby power standard of 1.5 W or 

lower. Thus, in their opinion such a 

standby standard could lead to the loss 

of consumer utility. 

Noting manufacturer concerns about 

reduced utility resulting from standby 

power requirements, DOE researched 

this issue in detail. Microwave ovens 

with all other display types found in the 

DOE sample are projected to be able to 

meet a 1.0 W standby level as long as 

other standby power-consuming 

components are carefully specified. 

DOE consulted power supply design 

subject matter experts before conducting 

interviews with manufacturers. The 

subject matter experts noted that the noload standby loads imposed by the 

power supplies in the DOE microwave 

oven test sample could be reduced with 

improved materials or by a topology 

change to a switching power supply 

(which has more parts, a higher cost, 

and potentially lower reliability). One 

manufacturer stated that it already 

makes microwave ovens that use 

switching power supplies for the U.S. 

market. The manufacturer noted that 

such a power supply change reduced 

the standby power of that 

manufacturer’s product from 

approximately 3 W to 1–2 W. All 

manufacturers agreed that substantial 

investments in product development 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62080 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

would likely result from standby power 

standards. 

All microwave oven manufacturers 

believe that a cooking sensor provides 

significant product differentiation. One 

manufacturer noted that it will 

transition this year to an absolute 

humidity sensor with zero standby 

power and zero incremental cost above 

that of a conventional absolute humidity 

sensor. For further information 

regarding microwave ovens, sensors, 

and standby power requirements, see 

section IV.B.1.a of this notice and 

chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying this 

notice. 

In some countries, such as Japan, 

many microwave ovens power down 

automatically after a period of 

inactivity. Based on DOE criteria, such 

microwave ovens achieve max-tech 

standby power, since they consume 

minimally more power than microwave 

ovens with electromechanical timers 

while allowing the use of a cooking 

sensor. All manufacturers that DOE 

interviewed oppose the max-tech 

standby level (0.02 W), claiming that 

such a standard would effectively force 

manufacturers to switch off the displays 

on their microwave ovens after a period 

of inactivity. Not only would this 

require a completely revised control 

circuit (with additional cost, uncertain 

reliability, additional testing, and other 

implications), but it would also reduce 

the ability of manufacturers to 

differentiate their products in the 

marketplace. All manufacturers stated 

that consumers expect that a microwave 

oven equipped with a display should 

show clock time while in standby mode. 

DOE identified two domestic 

microwave oven manufacturing 

facilities. DOE solicited comments from 

all microwave oven manufacturers 

regarding current industry conditions 

and likely responses to potential energy 

conservation standards. One 

manufacturer stated that any 

incremental cost could lead to plant 

closures and a shift to production 

facilities where the labor costs are 

lower. 

All manufacturers oppose a standby 

level that would effectively limit their 

ability to differentiate high- versus lowend products in the market. During 

interviews, manufacturers were asked to 

comment on the minimum standby limit 

that would allow such differentiation. 

The minimum standby limit varied by 

manufacturer and ranged from 1.5 W to 

4 W. 

c. Commercial Clothes Washers 

The key issues for CCW 

manufacturers remain unchanged from 

the November 2007 ANOPR analysis. 

During the NOPR MIA interviews, all 

CCW manufacturers stated they 

continue to support multiple CCW 

product classes and worry that high 

efficiency standards will significantly 

depress CCW unit shipments by 

encouraging the re-manufacture of old 

equipment and shifting the market 

further to in-unit laundry. Since its 

clothes washer revenue is so dependent 

on CCW sales, the LVM predicts that it 

will be impacted disproportionately by 

any CCW standard. The NOPR MIA 

interviews also focused on validating 

the November 2007 ANOPR CCW costefficiency curve. Based on conversations 

with all major CCW manufacturers and 

the determination of two CCW product 

classes, DOE is proposing two revised 

curves. For more details on the updated 

cost-efficiency curve, see section 

IV.C.2.b of this notice. 

CCW manufacturers identified five 

key issues in the ANOPR interviews: (1) 

The risk of eliminating top-loading 

washers from the market; (2) reduced 

product shipments due to a shift from 

central laundry facilities to in-unit 

residential laundry and prolonging the 

life of existing equipment; (3) reduced 

cleaning performance of certain energysaving design options; (4) the possible 

relocation of production facilities 

outside the country; and (5) the 

potential for industry consolidation 

and/or the elimination of the LVM. (See 

chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice for more details.) DOE 

addressed each of these key issues again 

during manufacturer interviews in the 

NOPR phase. Additional topics DOE 

discussed with CCW manufacturers 

during the NOPR-phase interviews 

included: (1) Higher efficiency toploading CCWs; (2) CCW performance 

metrics; (3) equipment reliability; and 

(4) test procedure issues. 

All manufacturers stated both 

publicly and privately that they support 

two CCW product classes, with separate 

efficiency standards for front-loading 

and top-loading CCWs. All CCW 

manufacturers stated that they expect a 

single efficiency standard to result in 

the elimination of top-loading CCWs 

with a traditional agitator. According to 

multiple manufacturers, the higher TSLs 

are technically feasible with nonagitator top-loading platforms that are 

based on existing RCW designs. 

Whirlpool stated that it could develop 

such a washer, though the company did 

not disclose the cost. (Whirlpool, No. 28 

at p. 5) However, multiple 

manufacturers consider these nonagitator top-loading CCWs unacceptable 

for the CCW market due to consumer 

utility issues. They believe that such 

CCWs cannot properly accommodate 

overloading and that consumer 

dissatisfaction could arise from poor 

wash quality. 

Manufacturers believe elimination of 

agitator top-loading washers could also 

harm laundromats and route operators 

who own and operate CCWs. Existing 

inventories of replacement parts for toploading washers could become obsolete 

as top-loading machines are replaced by 

front-loading models, potentially 

representing significant stranded 

capital. 

DOE sought comment from 

manufacturers regarding the possible 

impacts on CCW shipments due to 

proposed efficiency standards. All 

manufacturers agreed that the CCW 

market is at best flat, and possibly in 

decline. Manufacturers stated that: (1) 

Higher CCW costs could hasten the 

trend in multi-home housing from 

centralized CCW facilities to in-unit 

laundry; and (2) route operators and 

other CCW owners are expected to 

aggressively repair and remanufacture 

existing top-loading units rather than 

replace them with incompatible models. 

Manufacturers also expressed concern 

about the potential of energy efficiency 

standards to decrease shipments due to 

the higher initial costs of front-loading 

CCWs. Manufacturers stated that toploading CCWs are currently significantly 

lower in price, are more reliable, and 

have lower spare parts costs than frontloading CCWs. Because multi-housing 

units typically face fixed capital 

budgets, those units could purchase 

fewer CCWs if standards increase 

purchase prices. Since total industry 

CCW annual shipments are 

approximately 200,000, all 

manufacturers contacted were skeptical 

that engineering resources and capital 

would be used to design new, lowercost front-loading machines or expand 

existing production lines. During the 

ANOPR interviews, manufacturers 

stated that all top-loading CCW 

manufacturing facilities are domestic, 

whereas a significant number of frontloading shipments are sourced from 

abroad. Thus, any forced investments or 

decrease in top-loading shipments will 

disproportionately affect U.S. 

manufacturing sites. 

As noted above, three domestic 

manufacturers comprise nearly 100 

percent of the CCW market. Two of 

them are large, diversified appliance 

manufacturers, whereas the LVM 

focuses exclusively on laundry products 

(and has an approximately 45 percent 

market share.) Because the LVM derives 

87 percent of its clothes washer revenue 

from CCW sales, the impact of any CCW 

efficiency standards will affect the LVM 

more than its competitors, which derive 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62081 

82Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, 

(PNNL–15273 Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory) (2005). Available at: http:// 

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

technical_reports/PNNL–15273.pdf. 

83Lawson, Ann M., Kurt S. Bersani, Mahnaz 

Fahim-Nader, and Jiemin Guo, ‘‘Benchmark InputOutput Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1997,’’ 

Survey of Current Business (Dec. 2002) pp. 19–117. 

about one percent of their clothes 

washer revenue from CCW sales. The 

LVM has also stated that any standard 

that eliminates its current top-loading 

CCW platform, though not necessarily 

forcing the company out of business 

entirely, would materially harm the 

company and likely force it out of the 

clothes washer market altogether. For a 

detailed discussion of the LVM MIA 

issues, see the TSD accompanying this 

notice, chapter 13 and appendix 13–A. 

H. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts include direct and 

indirect impacts. Direct employment 

impacts are any changes in the number 

of employees for manufacturers of the 

appliance products that are the subject 

of this rulemaking, their suppliers, and 

related service firms. Indirect 

employment impacts are employment 

changes in the larger economy that 

occur due to the shift in expenditures 

and capital investment caused by the 

purchase and operation of moreefficient appliances. The MIA addresses 

the portion of direct employment 

impacts that concern manufacturers of 

the two appliance products that are 

subject to further analysis in this 

rulemaking, as well as the direct 

impacts on the suppliers of these 

manufacturers and related service firms. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced 

spending by end users on energy 

(electricity, gas (including liquefied 

petroleum gas), and oil); (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the 

utility industry; (3) increased spending 

on the purchase price of new products; 

and (4) the effects of those three factors 

throughout the economy. DOE expects 

the net monetary savings from standards 

to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. DOE also expects 

these shifts in spending and economic 

activity to affect the demand for labor in 

the short term, as explained below. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sectoral employment statistics 

developed by the BLS. The BLS 

regularly publishes its estimates of the 

number of jobs per million dollars of 

economic activity in different sectors of 

the economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital intensive and less 

labor intensive than other sectors. (See 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the 

Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

(RIMS II), Washington, DC, U.S. 

Department of Commerce (1992).) 

Efficiency standards have the effect of 

reducing consumer utility bills. Because 

reduced consumer expenditures for 

energy likely lead to increased 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy, the general effect of efficiency 

standards is to shift economic activity 

from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., 

the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and 

manufacturing sectors). Thus, based on 

the BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from standards for cooking products and 

CCWs. 

In developing this proposed rule, DOE 

estimated indirect national employment 

impacts using an input/output model of 

the U.S. economy called Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET). 

ImSET is a spreadsheet model of the 

U.S. economy that focuses on 188 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use.82 ImSET is a specialpurpose version of the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark 

National Input-Output’’ (I–O) model, 

which has been designed to estimate the 

national employment and income 

effects of energy-saving technologies 

that are deployed by DOE’s Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. Compared with the previous 

versions of the model used in earlier 

rulemakings, this version allows for 

more complete and automated analysis 

of the essential features of energy 

efficiency investments in buildings, 

industry, transportation, and the electric 

power sectors. The ImSET software 

includes a computer-based I–O model 

with structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among the 

188 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on the 1997 U.S. 

benchmark table (Lawson, et al. 2002),83

specially aggregated to 188 sectors. DOE 

estimated changes in expenditures using 

the NIA spreadsheet. Using ImSET, DOE 

then estimated the net national, 

indirect-employment impacts on 

employment by sector of potential new 

efficiency standards for cooking 

products and CCWs. 

While both ImSET and the direct use 

of BLS employment data suggest the 

proposed standards could increase the 

net demand for labor in the economy, 

the gains would most likely be very 

small relative to total national 

employment. Therefore, DOE concludes 

only that the proposed standards are 

likely to produce employment benefits 

that are sufficient to fully offset any 

adverse impacts on employment in the 

manufacturing or energy industries 

related to cooking products and CCWs. 

(See the TSD accompanying this notice, 

chapter 15.) 

I. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the change in the forecasted power 

generation capacity for the Nation, 

which would be expected to result from 

adoption of new standards. This 

analysis separately determines the 

changes to supply and demand as a 

result of natural gas, fuel oil, liquefied 

petroleum gas, or electricity residential 

consumption savings due to the 

standard. DOE calculated this change 

using the NEMS–BT computer model. 

NEMS–BT models certain policy 

scenarios such as the effect of reduced 

energy consumption per TSL by fuel 

type. The analysis output provides a 

forecast for the needed generation 

capacities at each TSL. The estimated 

net benefit of the standard is the 

difference between the forecasted 

generation capacities by NEMS–BT and 

the AEO 2008 Reference Case. 

DOE obtained the energy savings 

inputs associated with electricity and 

natural gas consumption savings from 

the NIA. These inputs reflect the effects 

of efficiency improvement on 

residential cooking product and CCW 

energy consumption, both fuel (natural 

gas) and electricity. Chapter 14 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice presents 

results of the utility impact analysis. 

EEI stated that DOE should show the 

change in natural gas production (i.e., 

infrastructure) as well as electric 

generation capacity as a result of 

standards. (EEI, No. 25 at p. 4) 

Historically, DOE’s approach for the 

utility impact analysis has only 

evaluated the impact on natural gas 

consumption and utility sales. The 

evaluation of impacts on the natural gas 

infrastructure that may result from 

declines in the sales of natural gas is not 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62082 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

84 Department of Energy—Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with 

Projections to 2030 (DOE/EIA–0383) (June 2008) 

Table A1. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ 

aeo/pdf/0383(2008).pdf. 

85The WaterSense program provides the public 

with information regarding water efficient products, 

including available consumer products and general 

information related to water efficiency. Refer to: 

http://www.epa.gov/watersense/. 

86McNeil, Michael, Camilla Dunham Whitehead, 

Virginie Letschert, and Mirka della Cava, 

WaterSense Program: Methodology for National 

Water Savings Analysis Model Indoor Residential 

Water Use (LBNL) (Feb. 2008). 

87This model is available at: http:// 

www.cuwcc.com/technical/action.lasso?- 

database=cuwcc_catalog&-layout=CDML&- 

response=detailed_results.html&-recordID=34196&- 

search. 

88This model is available at: http:// 

www.pacinst.org/resources/water_to_air_models/ 

index.htm. 

possible with the NEMS–BT analysis 

methodology. Therefore, DOE did not 

perform this type of evaluation in the 

utility impact analysis for the 

residential cooking product and CCW 

rulemaking. It is unlikely such impacts 

would be significant for the gas utility 

industry, however, given that the annual 

change in natural gas supply resulting 

from the standards is in the range of 1– 

18 trillion Btu (compared to an annual 

national gas supply of 19.04 quadrillion 

Btu.84) 

In its November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

stated that it did not plan to estimate 

impacts on water and wastewater 

utilities for its proposed rule, because 

the water and wastewater utility sector 

is more complicated than either the 

electric utility or gas utility sectors, with 

a high degree of geographic variability 

produced by a large diversity of water 

resource availability, institutional 

history, and regulatory context. 72 FR 

64432, 64508 (Nov. 15, 2007). Further, 

DOE was not aware of any national data 

or nationally based tool that would 

allow it to calculate the impacts on 

water and wastewater utilities or water 

and wastewater infrastructure 

requirements. The Joint Comment and 

numerous water organizations stated 

that DOE should analyze the impacts on 

water and wastewater utilities. The Joint 

Comment added that because there are 

widespread problems in water and 

wastewater infrastructure financing, 

DOE should commit to conducting such 

an analysis. The commenters cite the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) 2002 report, The Clean Water 

and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap 

Analysis (EPA–816–R–02–020), as 

evidence of the infrastructure problem. 

(Joint Comment, No. 29 at p. 4; AWE, 

AR, AMWA, CUWCC, and TBW, No. 34 

at p. 1) 

In response to public comments, DOE 

nevertheless conducted a review of 

governmental and non-governmental 

analytical tools that might prove 

suitable for calculating the impacts of 

CCW standards on water and 

wastewater utilities or water and 

wastewater infrastructure requirements. 

Specifically, the EPA, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), and DOE are 

conducting or initiating national 

activities to study water and wastewater 

issues, including those pertaining to 

water and wastewater utilities. These 

tools are discussed below. 

The EPA’s WaterSense program 85

provides information to enhance the 

market for water-efficient products, 

programs, and practices. EPA developed 

the National Water Saving (NWS) 

spreadsheet tool to estimate water 

savings attributable to WaterSense 

activities. The model examines the 

effects of WaterSense by tracking the 

shipments of products that WaterSense 

designates as water-efficient. It 

estimates savings based on an 

accounting analysis of water-using 

equipment and building stock.86 Since 

this tool only permits calculation of 

water savings, however, it would not 

add any capabilities that DOE does not 

already have 

With respect to non-governmental 

efforts, the California Urban Water 

Conservation Council (CUWCC) and the 

Pacific Institute have developed two 

tools for California water utilities. 

Avoided Cost Due to Water Efficiency 

and Conservation 87 assists California 

water utilities in calculating avoided 

costs and developing methods to 

quantify the environmental benefits and 

costs associated with implementing 

water efficiency programs. The Water to 

Air Model 88 helps California water 

managers quantify the energy and air 

quality dimensions of water 

management decisions. Neither of these 

models would allow estimation of 

impacts of water savings on water utility 

infrastructure requirements, however. 

In sum, none of these activities has 

yet produced the necessary data or tools 

to permit DOE to conduct a water utility 

impact analysis of the type requested by 

commenters. 

Although DOE cannot yet determine 

water and wastewater utility impacts at 

the national level, both the LCC analysis 

and the NIA do include the economic 

savings from decreased water and 

wastewater charges. Such economic 

savings should include the economic 

value of any energy savings that may be 

included in the provision of consumer 

water and wastewater services. 

J. Environmental Assessment 

DOE has prepared a draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a), to 

determine the environmental impacts of 

the proposed standards. Specifically, 

DOE estimated the reduction in power 

sector emissions of CO2 using the 

NEMS–BT computer model. DOE 

calculated a range of estimates for 

reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

emissions and mercury (Hg) emissions 

using power sector emission rates. 

However, the Environmental 

Assessment (see chapter 16 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice) does not 

include the estimated reduction in 

power sector emissions of SO2, because 

DOE has determined that due to the 

presence of national caps on SO2

emissions as addressed below, any such 

reduction resulting from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States. Because the operation of 

gas cooking products and CCWs 

requires use of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2 and NOX, DOE also 

accounted for the reduction in CO2 and 

NOX emissions from standards at the 

sites where these appliances are used. 

The NEMS–BT is run similarly to the 

AEO 2008 NEMS, except that cooking 

product and CCW energy use is reduced 

by the amount of energy saved (by fuel 

type) due to the TSLs. DOE obtained the 

inputs of national energy savings from 

the NIA spreadsheet model. For the 

environmental assessment, the output is 

the forecasted physical emissions. The 

net benefit of the standard is the 

difference between emissions estimated 

by NEMS–BT and the AEO 2008 

Reference Case. The NEMS–BT tracks 

CO2 emissions using a detailed module 

that provides results with broad 

coverage of all sectors and inclusion of 

interactive effects. For the final rule, 

DOE intends to revise the emissions 

analysis using the AEO 2009 NEMS 

model using the process outlined above. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 set an emissions cap on SO2 for all 

power generation. The attainment of 

this target, however, is flexible among 

generators and is enforced through the 

use of emissions allowances and 

tradable permits. Because SO2 emissions 

allowances have value, they will almost 

certainly be used by generators, 

although not necessarily immediately or 

in the same year with and without a 

standard in place. In other words, with 

or without a standard, total cumulative 

SO2 emissions will always be at or near 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62083 

the ceiling, while there may be some 

timing differences between year-by-year 

forecast. Thus, it is unlikely that there 

will be an SO2 environmental benefit 

from electricity savings as long as there 

is enforcement of the emissions ceilings. 

Although there may not be an actual 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 

electricity savings, there still may be an 

economic benefit from reduced demand 

for SO2 emission allowances. Electricity 

savings decrease the generation of SO2

emissions from power production, 

which can decrease the need to 

purchase or generate SO2 emissions 

allowance credits, and decrease the 

costs of complying with regulatory caps 

on emissions. 

Like SO2, future emissions of NOX

and Hg would have been subject to 

emissions caps under the Clean Air 

Interstate Act (CAIR) and Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR). As discussed 

later in section V.B.6, these rules have 

been vacated by a Federal court. But the 

NEMS–BT model used for today’s 

proposed rule assumed that both NOX

and Hg emissions would be subject to 

CAIR and CAMR emission caps. In the 

case of NOX emissions, CAIR would 

have permanently capped emissions in 

28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia. Because the NEMS–BT 

modeling assumed NOX emissions 

would be subject to CAIR, DOE 

established a range of NOX reductions 

based on the use of a NOX low and high 

emission rates (in metric kilotons (kt) of 

NOX emitted per terawatt-hours (TWh) 

of electricity generated) derived from 

the AEO 2008. To estimate the reduction 

in NOX emissions, DOE multiplied these 

emission rates by the reduction in 

electricity generation due to the 

standards considered. For mercury, 

because the emissions caps specified by 

CAMR would have applied to the entire 

country, DOE was unable to use the 

NEMS–BT model to estimate the 

physical quantity changes in mercury 

emissions due to energy conservation 

standards. To estimate mercury 

emission reductions due to standards, 

DOE used an Hg emission rate (in metric 

tons of Hg per energy produced) based 

on the AEO 2008. Because virtually all 

mercury emitted from electricity 

generation is from coal-fired power 

plants, DOE based the emission rate on 

the metric tons of mercury emitted per 

TWh of coal-generated electricity. To 

estimate the reduction in mercury 

emissions, DOE multiplied the emission 

rate by the reduction in coal-generated 

electricity associated with standards 

considered. 

In comments on the ANOPR, Earth 

Justice (EJ) stated that DOE must 

evaluate the economic benefits of the 

standards’ effects on allowance prices, 

that the exclusion of these benefits from 

DOE’s analysis is arbitrary, and that this 

exclusion serves only to artificially 

depress the economic value of stronger 

efficiency standards. (EJ, No. 31 at pp. 

1–2) DOE believes that the impact of 

any one standard on the allowance 

credit price is likely small and highly 

uncertain. However, DOE has attempted 

to monetize the potential benefit from 

SO2 emission reductions resulting from 

cooking product and CCW standards. 

The potential impact on SO2 allowance 

prices are discussed in section V.B.6. 

Because the CAIR and CAMR rules have 

been vacated by the courts, NOX and Hg 

allowances are no longer relevant, and 

therefore, DOE did not estimate the 

potential impact of standards on NOX

and Hg allowance prices in today’s 

proposed rule. 

DOE also received comments from 

stakeholders on the valuation of CO2

emissions savings that result from 

standards. The Joint Comment stated 

that by not placing an economic value 

on the benefits from reduced CO2

emissions, DOE makes it difficult to 

weigh these benefits in comparison to 

other benefits and costs resulting from 

a given standard level. Implicitly, the 

Joint Comment argued that DOE is 

arbitrarily valuing pollution reductions 

at $0, so the best way to avoid this 

mistake would be to estimate an 

economic value for pollutant 

reductions. According to the Joint 

Comment, voluminous work, both from 

academia and the business world, exists 

on the range of potential carbon prices 

under various regulatory scenarios. 

(Joint Comment, No. 29 at pp. 10–11) EJ 

stated that failure to assign an economic 

value to CO2 emissions is tantamount to 

valuing those emissions at zero, an 

approach that the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently 

held in Center for Biological Diversity v. 

NHTSA, 508 F.3d 508, 535 (9th Cir. 

2007), is arbitrary and capricious. 

Therefore, EJ reasoned that exclusion of 

CO2 emissions reduction benefits from 

DOE’s analysis on the basis of 

uncertainty about their precise measure 

would be arbitrary and capricious, 

arguing that there is considerable 

agreement that the monetized value of 

avoided CO2 is significantly higher than 

zero. (EJ, No. 31 at p. 2) DOE has made 

several additions to its monetization of 

environmental emissions reductions in 

today’s proposed rule, which are 

discussed in Section V.B.6, but has 

chosen to continue to report these 

benefits separately from the net benefits 

of energy savings. Nothing in EPCA, nor 

in the National Environmental Policy 

Act, requires that the economic value of 

emissions reduction be incorporated in 

the net present value analysis of the 

value of energy savings. Unlike energy 

savings, the economic value of 

emissions reduction is not priced in the 

marketplace. 

EEI stated that in its analysis of CO2, 

SO2, mercury, and NOX emissions from 

electric power generation, DOE should 

account for the rise in renewable 

portfolio standards and the possibility 

of an upcoming CO2 cap and trade 

program, both of which would reduce 

the amount of CO2 produced per kWh 

electricity generated. (EEI, No. 25 at p. 

4) DOE’s estimates of these emissions 

are based on output from the AEO 2008 

version of NEMS. The emissions 

projections reflect EIA’s best judgment 

about market factors and policies that 

affect utility choice of power plants for 

electricity generation. EIA generally 

includes only those policies that are 

already enacted. As the enactment of a 

CO2 cap and trade program is uncertain 

at this point, DOE believes it would be 

inappropriate to speculate on the nature 

and timing of such a policy for the 

purposes of this rulemaking. 

DOE also estimated the impacts on 

emissions at the sites where the 

appliance products are installed. In 

addition to electricity, the operation of 

gas cooking products and CCWs 

requires use of fossil fuels and results in 

emissions of CO2 and NOX at the sites 

where the appliances are used. NEMS– 

BT provides no means for estimating 

such emissions. Therefore, DOE 

calculated separate estimates of the 

effect of the proposed standards on site 

emissions of CO2 and NOX, based on 

emissions factors derived from the 

literature. Natural gas was the only 

fossil fuel accounted for by DOE in its 

analysis of standards for cooking 

products and CCWs. Because natural gas 

combustion does not yield SO2

emissions, DOE did not report the effect 

of the proposed standards on site 

emissions of SO2. DOE reports the 

estimates of CO2 and NOX site emission 

savings in its environmental assessment. 

EJ stated that DOE has presented no 

reasoned explanation—nor does one 

exist—of why environmental benefits 

that accrue in the future should be 

devalued. EJ stated that DOE’s intention 

to discount emissions reductions only 

underscores that emissions reductions 

are susceptible to evaluation in 

economic as well as purely 

environmental terms. If DOE intends to 

apply strictly monetary concepts like 

discount rates to its valuation of 

emissions reductions, then it must 

incorporate those reductions into its 

cost/benefit analysis by calculating their 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62084 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

monetary value. (EJ, No. 31 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE believes that discounted 

environmental benefits represent a 

policy perspective wherein benefits 

farther in the future are less significant 

than energy savings closer to the 

present. DOE continues to provide 

discounted environmental benefits for 

today’s proposed rule. 

In its November 2007 ANOPR, DOE 

stated it would conduct a separate 

analysis of wastewater discharge 

impacts as part of the environmental 

assessment for water-consuming 

appliances. For today’s proposed rule, 

DOE conducted this analysis for CCWs 

based on estimates of CCW water use 

and the typical amount of water 

retention in a clothes load after a wash 

cycle. Based on the RMC of the clothes 

after a wash cycle, DOE estimated that 

approximately two percent of CCW 

water use is retained in the clothes load 

at the baseline efficiency level. The 

RMC decreases as a function of 

increasing CCW efficiency, thereby 

decreasing the amount of water 

retention in the clothes. But the amount 

of water use decreases with CCW 

efficiency as well. Because the rate of 

water use savings grows at 

approximately double the rate of water 

retention, the increased amount of water 

retained in the clothes as a percentage 

of the water use savings drops from 

approximately two percent to one 

percent over the range of CCW 

efficiencies considered. Therefore, 

assuming that water not retained in the 

clothes load is discharged into the 

wastewater stream, wastewater 

discharge savings range from 98 to 99 

percent of the water use savings at the 

baseline and max-tech levels, 

respectively. Section V.B.6 reports the 

estimated wastewater discharge savings. 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of a number of TSLs for the 

appliance products that are the subject 

of today’s proposed rule. Trial standard 

levels are based on efficiency levels 

explored in the ANOPR and were 

selected upon consideration of 

economic factors and current market 

conditions. The basis for the TSL 

selection is described for each of the 

appliance products below. Tables V.1, 

V.2, V.3, and V.4 present the TSLs and 

the corresponding product class 

efficiencies for conventional cooking 

products, microwave ovens (two tables), 

and CCWs, respectively. 

1. Cooking Products 

Table V.1 shows the TSLs for 

conventional cooking products. As 

discussed in section III.C.1, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis to 

determine the design options that are 

technologically feasible and can be 

considered as measures to improve 

product efficiency. However, as 

discussed in the November 2007 

ANOPR as well as chapters 3 and 4 of 

the TSD accompanying this notice, there 

are few design options available for 

improving the efficiency of these 

cooking products due to physical 

limitations on energy transfer to the 

food load. This is particularly the case 

for all cooktop and self-cleaning oven 

product classes. For electric cooktops, 

DOE was able to identify only a single 

design change for analysis. For gas 

cooktops and electric self-cleaning 

ovens, DOE was able to identify two 

design options for analysis. And for gas 

self-cleaning ovens, DOE was able to 

identify three design options for 

analysis. Although DOE considered 

several design options for standard 

ovens, with the exception of eliminating 

standing pilots for gas standard ovens, 

none significantly increased product 

efficiency. Specifically, eliminating 

standing pilots reduces overall gas 

consumption by over 50 percent while 

all other design options reduce gas 

consumption by approximately two 

percent. Therefore, DOE gave further 

consideration to only four TSLs for 

conventional cooking products. 

TSL 1 represents the elimination of 

standing pilot ignition systems from gas 

cooking products. All other product 

classes are unaffected by TSL 1, 

including gas self-cleaning ovens, which 

are not allowed to use standing pilot 

ignition systems because they already 

use electricity and come equipped with 

power cords to enable the self-cleaning 

cycle. Under TSL 1, DOE’s current 

prescriptive standard of disallowing the 

use of standing pilot ignition systems in 

gas cooking pilots equipped with power 

cords would be extended to all gas 

cooking products, regardless of whether 

the appliance is equipped with a power 

cord. Also, under TSL 1, there would be 

no need for DOE to regulate the EF of 

any of the conventional cooking product 

classes because only standing pilot 

ignition systems are being affected. 

TSL 2 for conventional cooking 

products consists of the candidate 

standard levels from each of the product 

classes that provide a majority of 

consumers (who are impacted by the 

standard) with an economic benefit. 

Based on this criterion, only electric coil 

cooktops and electric standard ovens 

have candidate standard levels that 

differ from those in TSL 1. In other 

words, for the remaining five product 

classes (electric smooth cooktops, 

electric self-cleaning ovens, and all gas 

cooking product classes), analytical 

results indicate there is no candidate 

standard level that provides an 

economic benefit to a majority of 

consumers. 

TSL 3 for conventional cooking 

products consists of the same candidate 

standard levels as TSL 2, with the 

exception of the gas self-cleaning oven 

product class. For gas self-cleaning 

ovens, the design option that provides, 

on average, a small level of economic 

benefit to consumers is included. 

TSL 4 is the maximum 

technologically feasible level. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

Product Classes 

TSLs (EF) 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Electric Coil Cooktops ........... No Standard (Baseline) ......... 0.769 ...................................... 0.769 ...................................... 0 .769 

Electric Smooth Cooktops ..... No Standard (Baseline) ......... No Standard (Baseline) ......... No Standard (Baseline) ......... 0 .753 

Gas Cooktops ........................ No Pilot .................................. No Pilot .................................. No Pilot .................................. 0 .420 

Electric Standard Ovens ........ No Standard (Baseline) ......... 0.1163 .................................... 0.1163 .................................... 0 .1209 

Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens No Standard (Baseline) ......... No Standard (Baseline) ......... No Standard (Baseline) ......... 0 .1123 

Gas Standard Ovens ............. No Pilot .................................. No Pilot .................................. No Pilot .................................. 0 .0600 

Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens ...... No Change to Existing Standard (Baseline).No Change to Existing Standard (Baseline).0.0625 .................................... 0 .0632 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62085 

As discussed previously in section 

III.A, DOE has concluded that it is 

currently technically infeasible to 

combine cooking efficiency (or EF) into 

a new efficiency metric with standby 

power consumption in microwave 

ovens. As a result, DOE considered two 

sets of TSLs-one set comprised solely of 

EF levels (TSLs 1a–4a) and a second set 

comprised solely of standby power 

levels (TSLs 1b–4b). 

Table V.2 shows the TSLs for the 

regulation of cooking efficiency or EF. 

TSLs 1a though 4a correspond to 

candidate standard levels 1a through 4a, 

respectively, and affect only the EF. For 

TSLs 1a through 4a, no standard to limit 

standby power is specified. TSL 4a 

corresponds to the maximum feasible 

EF level. None of these first four TSLs 

have an LCC lower than the baseline 

level or an NPV that provides a net 

economic benefit to the Nation. 

TABLE V.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY FACTOR

TSLs 

TSL 1a TSL 2a TSL 3a TSL 4a 

EF .................................................................................................................... 0.586 0.588 0.597 0.602 

Table V.3 shows the TSLs for the 

regulation of standby power. TSLs 1b 

through 4b correspond to candidate 

standard levels 1b through 4b, 

respectively, and affect only standby 

power. For TSLs 1b through 4b, no 

standard on EF is specified. All four of 

these TSLs yield LCC savings relative to 

the baseline level and provide a net 

economic benefit to the Nation. TSL 3b 

corresponds to the maximum feasible 

level for the regulation of standby 

power, which does not affect the 

appliance’s capability to continually 

display the time. TSL 4b corresponds to 

the maximum technologically feasible 

level for the regulation of standby 

power, and it also represents the level 

with the minimum LCC as well as the 

maximum NPV. However, TSL 4b 

results in the inability of the appliance 

to continually display the time. 

TABLE V.3— TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER

TSLs 

TSL 1b TSL 2b TSL 3b TSL 4b 

Standby Power (W) ......................................................................................... 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.02 

2. Commercial Clothes Washers 

Table V.4 shows the TSLs for CCWs. 

TSLs consist of a combination of MEF 

and WF for each product class. In all, 

DOE has considered five TSLs. TSL 1 

corresponds to the first candidate 

standard level from each product class 

and represents the efficiency level for 

each class with the least significant 

design change. For TSL 2, the candidate 

standard levels for each class are simply 

incremented to the second candidate 

standard level and represent the next 

technological design change for each 

class. TSL 3 represents the third 

candidate standard level for top-loading 

washers (the maximum efficiency level 

for this class) while keeping frontloading washers at its second candidate 

standard level. For TSL 3, front-loading 

washers were held to the second 

candidate standard level in order to 

minimize the equipment price 

difference between the two product 

classes. For TSL 4, top-loading washers 

are retained at their maximum 

efficiency level while front-loading 

washers are incremented to their third 

candidate standard level. Finally, TSL 5 

corresponds to the maximum 

technologically feasible level for each 

product class. In progressing from TSL 

1 to TSL 5, the LCC savings, NES, and 

NPV all increase. TSL 5 represents the 

level with the minimum LCC and 

maximum NES and NPV. 

TABLE V.4—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Top-Loading: 

MEF .................................................................... 1 .42 1 .60 1 .76 1 .76 1 .76 

WF ...................................................................... 9 .5 8 .5 8 .3 8 .3 8 .3 

Front-Loading: 

MEF .................................................................... 1 .80 2 .00 2 .00 2 .20 2 .35 

WF ...................................................................... 7 .5 5 .5 5 .5 5 .1 4 .4 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

To evaluate the net economic impact 

of standards on consumers, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses for 

each TSL. In general, higher-efficiency 

products would affect consumers in two 

ways: (1) annual operating expense 

would decrease; and (2) purchase price 

would increase. Section IV.D of this 

notice discusses the inputs DOE used 

for calculating the LCC and PBP. 

The key outputs of the LCC analysis 

are a mean LCC savings relative to the 

baseline product design, as well as a 

probability distribution or likelihood of 

LCC reduction or increase, for each TSL 

and product class. The LCC analysis 

also estimates the fraction of product 

consumers for which the LCC will 

decrease (net benefit), increase (net 

cost), or exhibit no change (no impact) 

relative to the base-case equipment 

forecast. No impacts occur when the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62086 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

equipment efficiencies of the base-case 

forecast already equal or exceed the 

considered TSL efficiency. 

Tables V.5 through V.17 show the 

mean LCC savings and the percent of 

households with a net cost, no impact, 

and a net benefit (i.e., positive savings) 

at each TSL for each product class. The 

average LCC and its components (the 

average installed price and the average 

operating cost) are also presented for 

each TSL. The tables also show the 

median and average payback period at 

each TSL. 

Cooking Products. Tables V.5, V.6, 

and V.7 show the LCC and PBP results 

for cooktops. For example, in the case 

of gas cooktops, TSL 1 (pilotless ignition 

with an efficiency of 0.399 EF) shows an 

average LCC savings of $13 for the 

average household. Note that for TSL 1, 

93.5 percent of the housing units in 

2012 already purchased a gas cooktop 

with pilotless ignition in the base case 

and, thus, have zero savings due to the 

standard. If one compares the LCC of the 

average household at the baseline level 

at 0.106 EF ($822) to TSL 1 at 0.399 EF 

($559), then the difference in the LCCs 

of the average household is $263. 

However, since the base case includes a 

significant number of households that 

are not impacted by the standard, the 

average savings over all of the 

households is actually $13, not $263. 

DOE determined the median and 

average values of the PBPs shown below 

by excluding the percentage of 

households not impacted by the 

standard. For example, in the case of 

TSL 1 for gas cooktops, 93.5 percent of 

the households did not factor into the 

calculation of the median and average 

PBP. 

TABLE V.5—ELECTRIC COIL COOKTOPS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.737 $272 $173 $445 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 0.737 272 173 445 No change from baseline 

2, 3, 4 ... 0.769 276 166 441 $4 29.5 0.0 70.6 7.3 18.1 

TABLE V.6—ELECTRIC SMOOTH COOKTOPS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.742 $309 $173 $482 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1, 2, 3 ... 0.742 309 173 482 No change from baseline 

4 ........... 0.753 550 170 720 ¥$238 100.0 0.0 0.0 1,512 3,745 

TABLE V.7—GAS COOKTOPS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.106 $310 $512 $822 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1, 2, 3 ... 0.399 332 227 559 $13 0.2 93.5 6.3 4.5 3.5 

4 ........... 0.420 361 222 583 ¥$11 93.9 0.0 6.1 77 271 

Similarly, Tables V.8 through V.11 

show the LCC and PBP results for ovens 

(other than microwave ovens.) For 

example, in the case of gas standard 

ovens, TSL 1 (pilotless spark ignition 

with an efficiency of 0.0583 EF) shows 

an average LCC savings of $6. If one 

compares the LCC of the base case at 

0.0298 EF ($803) to the standards case 

at 0.0583 EF ($714), then the difference 

in the LCCs is $89. However, the base 

case includes a significant number of 

households that are either at the 

baseline level or have ovens equipped 

with pilotless glo-bar ignition (82.3 

percent of households). Because the 

base case includes a significant number 

of households that are not impacted by 

the standard, the average savings over 

all of the households is actually $6, not 

$289. DOE determined the median and 

average values of the PBPs shown below 

by excluding the percentage of 

households not impacted by the 

standard. For example, in the case of 

TSL 1 for gas standard ovens, 82.3 

percent of the households did not factor 

into the calculation of the median and 

average PBP. Also, the large difference 

in the average and median values for 

TSL 4 for all ovens is due to households 

with excessively long PBPs in the 

distribution of results. The Monte Carlo 

simulation for TSL 4 yielded a few 

results with PBPs in excess of thousands 

of years. A limited number of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62087 

excessively long PBPs produce an 

average PBP that is very long. Therefore, 

in these cases, the median PBP is a more 

representative value to gauge the length 

of the PBP. 

TABLE V.8—ELECTRIC STANDARD OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.1066 $414 $218 $631 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 0.1066 414 218 631 No change from baseline 

2, 3 ....... 0.1163 421 201 622 $9 43.9 0.0 56.1 8.0 310 

4 ........... 0.1209 489 194 683 ¥$52 95.2 0.0 4.8 61 2,337 

TABLE V.9—ELECTRIC SELF-CLEANING OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.1099 $485 $230 $715 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1, 2, 3 ... 0.1099 485 230 715 No change from baseline 

4 ........... 0.1123 548 226 774 ¥$143 78.9 0.0 21.1 240 1263 

TABLE V.10—GAS STANDARD OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.0298 $430 $373 $803 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1, 2, 3 ... 0.0583 464 250 714 $6 6.5 82.3 11.2 9.4 7.3 

4 ........... 0.0600 507 469 975 ¥$86 95.0 0.0 5.0 27 473 

TABLE V.11—GAS SELF-CLEANING OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.0540 $550 $594 $1,144 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1, 2 ....... 0.0540 550 594 1,144 No change from baseline 

3 ........... 0.0625 566 577 1,143 $1 58.9 0.0 41.1 11 164 

4 ........... 0.0632 574 576 1,150 ¥$6 68.8 0.0 31.2 16 279 

Tables V.12 and V.13 show the LCC 

and PBP results for microwave ovens. 

Two sets of results are presented—one 

for the TSLs that pertain to EF and 

another for the TSLs that pertain to 

standby power. For the TSLs pertaining 

to standby power, TSL 2b (1.5 W 

standby power) shows an average LCC 

savings of $13. Note that for TSL 2b, 

19.1 percent of the housing units in 

2012 have already purchased a 

microwave oven at this level and, thus, 

have zero savings due to the standard. 

If one compares the LCC of the baseline 

at 0.557 EF and 4 W standby power 

($348) to TSL 2b ($333), then the 

difference in the LCCs is $15. However, 

since the base case includes a 

significant number of households that 

are not impacted by the standard, the 

average savings over all the households 

is actually $13, not $15. DOE 

determined the median and average 

values of the PBPs shown below by 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62088 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

excluding the percentage of households 

not impacted by the standard. For 

example, in the case of TSL 2b, 19.1 

percent of the households did not factor 

into the calculation of the median and 

average PBP. 

TABLE V.12—MICROWAVE OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR EF 

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 0.557 $220 $128 $348 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1a ......... 0.586 232 123 356 ¥$3 42.0 53.7 4.3 29 69 

2a ......... 0.588 246 123 369 ¥10 45.2 53.7 1.1 57 133 

3a ......... 0.597 267 122 389 ¥19 45.9 53.7 0.4 81 190 

4a ......... 0.602 294 121 415 ¥31 46.2 53.7 0.1 115 268 

TABLE V.13—MICROWAVE OVENS: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR STANDBY POWER

TSL EF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 4.0 $220 $128 $348 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1b ......... 2.0 220 115 335 6 0.0 53.7 46.3 0.3 0.3 

2b ......... 1.5 221 112 333 13 0.0 19.1 80.9 0.6 0.8 

3b ......... 1.0 222 102 331 18 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.5 1.6 

4b ......... 0.02 228 102 330 19 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.1 3.5 

Commercial Clothes Washers. Tables 

V.14 and V.15 show the LCC and PBP 

results for both CCW product 

applications for the top-loading product 

class while Tables V.16 and V.17 show 

the LCC and PPB results for the frontloading product class. For example, in 

the case of the multi-family application 

for front-loading washers (Table V.16), 

TSL 2 (2.00 MEF/5.50 WF) shows an 

average LCC savings of $52. Note that 

for TSL 2, 88.3 percent of consumers in 

2012 are assumed to already be using a 

CCW in the base case at TSL 2 and, 

thus, have zero savings due to the 

standard. If one compares the LCC of the 

baseline at 1.72 MEF/8.00 WF ($3980) to 

TSL 2 ($3489), then the difference in the 

LCCs is $491. However, since the base 

case includes a significant number of 

consumers that are not impacted by the 

standard, the average savings over all of 

the consumers is actually $52, not $491. 

DOE determined the median and 

average values of the PBPs shown below 

by excluding the percentage of 

households not impacted by the 

standard. For example, in the case of 

TSL 2 for front-loading washers in a 

multi-family application, 88.3 percent of 

the consumers did not factor into the 

calculation of the median and average 

PBP. 

TABLE V.14—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING, MULTI-FAMILY APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $734 $3,034 $3,768 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.42/9.50 852 2,934 3,786 ¥$11.6 45.0 35.7 19.3 10.7 15.6 

2 ........... 1.60/8.50 940 2,675 3,615 154.5 15.4 2.8 81.7 4.5 5.5 

3, 4, 5 ... 1.76/8.30 963 2,560 3,524 243.7 10.0 2.8 87.2 3.8 4.6 

TABLE V.15—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING, LAUNDROMAT APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $734 $3,191 $3,925 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.42/9.50 852 3,103 3,955 ¥$19.6 53.4 35.7 10.9 7.4 8.5 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62089 

TABLE V.15—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING, LAUNDROMAT APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS—Continued 

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

2 ........... 1.60/8.50 940 2,823 3,763 166.4 3.6 2.8 93.6 2.8 3.0 

3, 4, 5 ... 1.76/8.30 963 2,712 3,675 252.3 1.1 2.8 96.1 2.4 2.5 

TABLE V.16—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, FRONT-LOADING, MULTI-FAMILY APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.72/8.00 $1,316 $2,664 $3,980 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.80/7.50 1,316 2,664 3,860 $8.7 0.0 92.7 7.3 0.0 0.0 

2, 3 ....... 2.00/5.50 1,338 2,544 3,489 51.8 0.0 88.3 11.7 0.4 0.5 

4 ........... 2.20/5.10 1,376 2,151 3,404 134.4 2.3 2.8 94.9 2.8 3.1 

5 ........... 2.35/4.40 1,417 2,027 3,302 234.1 1.5 1.5 97.0 2.8 3.0 

TABLE V.17—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, FRONT-LOADING, LAUNDROMAT APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period 

(years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Net cost Median Average 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.72/8.00 $1,316 $1,885 $4,135 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.80/7.50 1,316 2,818 4,005 $9.5 0.0 92.7 7.3 0.0 0.0 

2, 3 ....... 2.00/5.50 1,338 2,688 3,587 58.0 0.0 88.3 11.7 0.3 0.3 

4 ........... 2.20/5.10 1,376 2,249 3,502 140.1 0.0 2.8 97.2 1.7 1.8 

5 ........... 2.35/4.40 1,417 2,126 3,390 250.4 0.0 1.5 98.5 1.6 1.7 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, 

DOE determined the impact of the 

standards on the following consumer 

subgroups: (1) low-income households 

and senior-only households for 

conventional cooking products and 

microwave ovens, and (2) small 

business owners and consumers without 

municipal water and sewer for CCWs. 

Cooking Products. For conventional 

cooking products and microwave ovens, 

the results for low-income and senioronly households indicate that the LCC 

impacts on these subgroups and the 

payback periods are similar to the LCC 

impacts and payback periods on the full 

sample of residential consumers. Thus, 

the proposed standards would have an 

impact on low-income households and 

senior-only households that would be 

similar to their impact on the general 

population of residential consumers. 

(See the TSD accompanying this notice, 

chapter 12.) 

Commercial Clothes Washers. For 

CCWs, the results for consumers 

without municipal water and sewer 

indicate that the LCC impacts and 

payback periods for this subgroup are 

similar to the LCC impacts and payback 

periods on the full sample of CCW 

consumers. But for small business 

owners, the LCC impacts and payback 

periods are different than for the general 

population. For the top-loading product 

class, Tables V.18 and V.19 show the 

LCC impacts and payback periods for 

small multi-family property owners and 

small laundromats, respectively, while 

Tables V.20 and V.21 show the same but 

for the front-loading product class. For 

all TSLs for both product classes (with 

exception of TSL 1 for top-loading 

washers), both sets of small business 

owners, on average, realize LCC savings 

similar to the general population. The 

difference between the small business 

population and the general population 

occurs in the percentage of each 

population that realizes LCC savings 

from standards. With the exception of 

TSL 1 for top-loading washers, an 

overwhelming majority of the small 

business and general populations 

benefit from standards at each TSL. But 

for both product classes, a larger 

percentage of the general population 

benefits from standards than small 

business owners. This occurs because 

small businesses do not have the same 

access to capital as larger businesses. As 

a result, smaller businesses have a 

higher average discount rate than the 

industry average. Because of the higher 

discount rates, smaller businesses do 

not value future operating costs savings 

from more efficient CCWs as much as 

the general population. But to 

emphasize, in spite of the higher 

discount rates, a majority of small 

businesses still benefit from higher CCW 

standards at all TSLs, with the 

exception of TSL 1 for the top-loading 

product class. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62090 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.18—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING, MULTI-FAMILY APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period (years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $734 $2,463 $3,197 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.42/9.50 852 2,382 3,234 ¥$23.2 51.3 35.8 12.9 10.7 15.7 

2 ........... 1.60/8.50 940 2,172 3,112 95.0 23.1 3.1 73.8 4.5 5.5 

3, 4, 5 ... 1.72/8.00 963 2,079 3,042 163.1 15.7 3.1 81.2 3.8 4.6 

TABLE V.19—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, TOP-LOADING, LAUNDROMAT APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period (years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $734 $2,765 $3,499 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.42/9.50 852 2,689 3,541 ¥$26.9 59.4 35.8 4.8 7.4 8.5 

2 ........... 1.60/8.50 940 2,447 3,387 122.5 7.0 3.1 89.9 2.8 3.0 

3, 4, 5 ... 1.72/8.00 963 2,350 3,313 194.0 2.9 3.1 94.0 2.4 2.5 

TABLE V.20—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, FRONT-LOADING, MULTI-FAMILY APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period (years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.72/8.00 $1,316 $2,164 $3,480 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.80/7.50 1,316 2,164 3,383 $6.9 0.0 92.9 7.1 0.0 0.0 

2, 3 ....... 2.00/5.50 1,338 2,067 3,086 41.5 0.0 88.3 11.7 0.4 0.5 

4 ........... 2.20/5.10 1,376 1,748 3,024 101.5 6.7 2.9 90.4 2.8 3.1 

5 ........... 2.35/4.40 1,417 1,648 2,950 174.7 5.6 1.4 93.1 2.8 3.0 

TABLE V.21—COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, FRONT-LOADING, LAUNDROMAT APPLICATION: LIFE-CYCLE COST AND

PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS

TSL MEF/WF 

Life-cycle cost Life-cycle cost savings Payback period (years) 

Average 

installed 

price 

Average 

operating 

cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

Households with 

Median Average Net cost 

(percent) 

No impact 

(percent) 

Net benefit 

(percent) 

Baseline 1.72/0 $1,316 $1,533 $3,759 .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

1 ........... 1.80/7.50 1,316 2,443 3,646 $8.0 0.0 92.9 7.1 0.0 0.0 

2, 3 ....... 2.00/5.50 1,338 2,330 3,287 50.0 0.0 88.3 11.7 0.3 0.3 

4 ........... 2.20/5.10 1,376 1,949 3,219 116.2 0.0 2.9 97.1 1.7 1.8 

5 ........... 2.35/4.40 1,417 1,843 3,128 206.2 0.0 1.4 98.6 1.6 1.7 

c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

As discussed above, EPCA establishes 

a rebuttable presumption that, in 

essence, an energy conservation 

standard is economically justified if the 

increased purchase cost for a product 

that meets the standard is less than 

three times the value of the first-year 

energy savings resulting from the 

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

DOE calculated a rebuttablepresumption payback period for each 

TSL to determine whether DOE could 

presume that a standard at that level is 

economically justified. Tables V.22 

through V.25 show the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for 

conventional cooking products, 

microwave ovens, and CCWs, 

respectively. Because only a single, 

average value is necessary for 

establishing the rebuttable-presumption 

payback period, rather than using 

distributions for input values, DOE used 

discrete values. As required by EPCA, 

DOE based the calculation on the 

assumptions in the DOE test procedures 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62091 

for the appliance products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) As a result, DOE 

calculated a single rebuttablepresumption payback value, and not a distribution of payback periods, for each 

TSL. 

TABLE V.22—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

TSL 

Payback period (years) 

Electric coil 

cooktops 

Electric 

smooth 

cooktops 

Gas cooktops 

Electric 

standard 

ovens 

Electric selfclean ovens Gas standard 

ovens 

Gas self-clean 

ovens 

1 ............................. NA NA 3 .2 NA NA 7 .3 NA 

2 ............................. 3.2 NA 3 .2 2 .6 NA 7 .3 NA 

3 ............................. 3.2 NA 3 .2 2 .6 NA 7 .3 6.5 

4 ............................. 3.2 664 14 20 95 23 9.1 

TABLE V.23—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY FACTOR

TSL Payback period 

(years) 

1a ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 

2a ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 

3a ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 

4a ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 

TABLE V.24—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER

TSL Payback period 

(years) 

1b ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.2 

2b ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.4 

3b ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.8 

4b ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.1 

TABLE V.25—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

TSL 

Payback period (years) 

Top-Loading Front-loading 

Multi-family 

application 

Laundromat 

application 

Multi-family 

application 

Laundromat 

application 

1 ................................................................................................................. 303 a∞ 0 0 

2 ................................................................................................................. 23 .4 201 1 .3 1 .5 

3 ................................................................................................................. 17 .4 62 1 .3 1 .5 

4 ................................................................................................................. 17 .4 62 7 .6 12 .6 

5 ................................................................................................................. 17 .4 62 8 .9 15 .0 

a Infinity. 

With the exception of TSLs 2 and 3 

for electric standard ovens and TSLs 1b 

to 4b for microwave ovens, and TSLs 1 

to 3 for front-loading CCWs, the TSLs in 

the above tables do not have rebuttablepresumption payback periods of less 

than three years. DOE can use the 

rebuttable-presumption payback period 

as an alternative path for establishing 

economic justification under the EPCA 

factors. But DOE believes that the 

rebuttable-presumption payback period 

criterion (i.e., a limited payback period) 

is not sufficient for determining 

economic justification. Instead, DOE has 

considered a full range of impacts, 

including those to consumers, 

manufacturers, the Nation, and the 

environment. Section V.C provides a 

complete discussion of how DOE 

considered the range of impacts to select 

its proposed standards. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new energy conservation 

standards on cooking product and CCW 

manufacturers. (See the TSD 

accompanying this notice, chapter 13.) 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

DOE used the INPV in the MIA to 

compare the financial impacts of 

different TSLs on cooking product and 

CCW manufacturers. The INPV is the 

sum of all net cash flows discounted at 

the industry’s cost of capital (discount 

rate.) Because the INPV applies only to 

the industries, the INPV is different 

from the NPV that DOE used to assess 

the cumulative benefit or cost of 

standards to consumers on a national 

basis. The GRIM estimated cash flows 

between 2007 and 2042 and found them 

to be consistent with the cash flows 

predicted in the national impact 

analysis. 

DOE used the GRIM to compare the 

INPV of the base case (no new energy 

conservation standards) to that of each 

TSL. To evaluate the range of cash-flow 

impacts on the industries, DOE 

constructed different scenarios for each 

industry using different assumptions for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62092 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

markups and shipments that correspond 

to the range of product-specific 

anticipated market responses. Each 

scenario results in a unique set of cash 

flows and corresponding industry value 

at each TSL. These steps allowed DOE 

to compare the potential impacts on 

industries as a function of TSLs in the 

GRIMs. The difference in INPV between 

the base case and the standards case is 

an estimate of the economic impacts 

that implementing that standard level 

would have on the entire industry. 

i. Conventional Cooking Products 

Based on conversations with 

manufacturers, the primary sources of 

uncertainty relating to the poststandards industry value for 

conventional cooking products are the 

post-standards markups and their 

associated profit margins. 

To assess the lower end of the range 

of potential impacts for the 

conventional cooking products industry, 

DOE considered a scenario in which the 

industry gross margin percentage in the 

base case is preserved in the standards 

case (i.e., the markup is held constant 

for all products at all TSLs). Thus, a 

manufacturer is able to fully pass on any 

additional costs due to standards and 

maintain the percentage margin between 

COGS and manufacturing selling price. 

Thus, if unit sales remain constant, the 

gross margin in absolute dollars will 

increase after a standard comes into 

effect. 

To assess the higher end of the range 

of potential impacts for the 

conventional cooking products industry, 

DOE considered the scenario reflecting 

the preservation of industry gross 

margin in absolute dollars. Under this 

scenario, DOE assumed that the 

industry cannot pass on all additional 

costs due to efficiency-related changes 

(i.e., the markup decreases for all TSLs 

in the standards case.) Thus, the 

absolute gross margin is held constant. 

This means that the percentage 

difference between manufacturer 

production cost and selling price will 

decrease in the standards case compared 

to the base case and that the gross 

margin percentage will be lower. As a 

result, the industry will make the same 

gross margin in absolute dollars poststandard in a scenario with constant 

shipments but the industry will also 

have a lower INPV since the gross 

margin percentage is eroding. Table 

V.26 through Table V.33 show the MIA 

results for each TSL using both markup 

scenarios described above for 

conventional cooking products, 

including electrical and gas cooktops 

and ovens. 

TABLE V.26—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 357 357 355 355 434 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0 (2) (2) 77 

(%) ...................................... ........................ 0.00% ¥0.56% ¥0.56% 21.62% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 9.6 9.6 21.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.1 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 9.6 9.6 94.9 

TABLE V.27—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 357 357 346 346 (26) 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0 (11) (11) (383) 

(%) ...................................... ........................ 0.00% ¥3.18% ¥3.18% ¥107.19% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 9.6 9.6 21.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.1 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 9.6 9.6 94.9 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62093 

TABLE V.28—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 287 282 282 282 315 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ (5) (5) (5) 28 

(%) ...................................... ¥1.74% ¥1.74% ¥1.74% 9.83% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 9.4 9.4 9.4 20.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.3 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 11.5 11.5 11.5 24.1 

TABLE V.29—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS COOKTOPS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 287 275 275 275 146 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ (12) (12) (12) (141) 

(%) ...................................... ¥4.12% ¥4.12% ¥4.12% ¥49.12% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 9.4 9.4 9.4 20.8 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.3 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 11.5 11.5 11.5 24.1 

TABLE V.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 793 793 785 785 782 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0 (8) (8) (10) 

(%) ...................................... ........................ 0.00% ¥0.99% ¥0.99% ¥1.27% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 20.8 20.8 67.6 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 0.8 0.8 179.8 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 21.6 21.6 247.5 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62094 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.31—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ELECTRIC OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin absolute dollars markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 793 793 773 773 324 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0 (19) (19) (469) 

(%) ...................................... ........................ 0.00% ¥2.43% ¥2.43% ¥59.16% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 20.8 20.8 67.6 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 0.8 0.8 179.8 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 21.6 21.6 247.5 

TABLE V.32 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 466 459 459 460 420 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ (7) (7) (6) (47) 

(%) ...................................... ........................ ¥1.57% ¥1.57% ¥1.38% ¥10.04% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 9.4 9.4 18.7 100.3 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 1.8 1.8 7.6 72.0 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 11.1 11.1 26.4 172.3 

TABLE V.33—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR GAS OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO

Preservation of gross margin (absolute dollars) markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 

INPV ...................................... (2006 $ millions) ............... 466 457 457 426 285 

Change in INPV .................... (2006 $ millions) ............... ........................ (10) (10) (41) (181) 

(%) .................................... ........................ ¥2.10% ¥2.10% ¥8.68% ¥38.80% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ............... ........................ 9.4 9.4 18.7 100.3 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .......................

(2006 $ millions) ............... ........................ 1.8 1.8 7.6 72.0 

Total Investment 

Required .....................

(2006 $ millions) ............... ........................ 11.1 11.1 26.4 172.3 

Electric Cooktops. At TSL 1, the 

impact on INPV and cash flow for 

electric cooktops is zero. At this level, 

DOE assumed both electric coil and 

smooth cooktops would have the same 

efficiency level as the baseline. 

Therefore, no impacts are reported at 

TSL 1. 

At TSL 2 and TSL 3, the impact on 

INPV and cash flow varies depending 

on manufacturers’ ability to maintain 

gross margins as a percentage of 

revenues constant as the manufacturing 

product cost (MPC) increases as a result 

of standards. DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV at TSL 2 and TSL 3 to range 

from ¥$2 million to ¥$11 million, or 

a change in INPV of ¥0.56 percent to 

¥3.18 percent. At this level, the 

industry cash flow would decrease by 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62095 

approximately 12 percent, to $18.3 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $20.8 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. DOE does 

not expect significant impacts at TSL 2 

and TSL 3 because the investments 

needed to conform to the standards are 

relatively small compared to overall 

SG&A and R&D annual costs. In 

addition, product price increases would 

benefit manufacturers if they can fully 

pass along MPC increases to customers. 

However, overall INPV would decline in 

all scenarios at these standard levels 

because, according to manufacturers, 

the research and engineering costs 

needed to achieve these levels would 

exceed the relatively small capital 

expenditures and incremental costs at 

this standard level. 

At TSL 4, the impact on INPV and 

cash flow will vary significantly 

depending on the manufacturers’ ability 

to maintain a constant gross margin 

percentage as MPCs increase due to 

standards. DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV to range from approximately 

positive $77 million to ¥$383 million, 

or a change in INPV of 21.62 percent to 

¥107.19 percent. At this level, the 

industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 168 percent, to ¥$14.1 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $20.8 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. At this TSL, 

if manufacturers are able to maintain 

their gross margin as a percentage of 

revenues, the impacts of higher 

manufacturing costs would be negated 

by the increases in total revenues. 

However, if manufacturers can only 

maintain their absolute dollar gross 

margin, then the impacts at TSL 4 

would completely erode manufacturers’ 

profits. According to manufacturers, the 

energy savings at this level are not 

economically justified because both 

consumers and manufacturers will 

experience negative impacts. Consumers 

would experience significantly higher 

prices, while manufacturers will 

experience decreased profits, lower 

revenues, and much higher R&D costs. 

Gas Cooktops. At TSL 1, TSL 2, and 

TSL 3, the impact on INPV and cash 

flow varies depending on 

manufacturers’ ability to fully maintain 

their gross margins as the MPCs increase 

as a result of the standards. These TSLs 

are equivalent to the elimination of 

standing pilot lights. DOE estimated the 

impacts in INPV at TSL 1, TSL 2, and 

TSL 3 to range from ¥$5 million up to 

¥$12 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥1.74 percent up to ¥4.12 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 19 percent, 

to $14.3 million, compared to the base 

case value of $17.6 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. Since more 

than 90 percent of the equipment being 

sold is already at or above this level (i.e., 

most products do not have standing 

pilot lights), those manufacturers that 

do not fall below the efficiency levels 

specified by TSL 1, TSL 2, and TSL 3 

will not have to make additional 

modifications to their product lines to 

conform to the amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE expects 

the lower end of the impacts to be 

reached, which indicates that industry 

revenues and costs will not be 

significantly negatively impacted as 

long as manufacturers can maintain 

their gross margin as a percentage of 

revenues. Analysis shows that although 

the elimination of standing pilot lights 

may not significantly impact large 

manufacturers, small manufacturers that 

rely on revenues from these products 

will be significantly impacted. In MIA 

interviews, all manufacturers of 

standing pilot-equipped gas appliances 

expressed concern about the potential 

elimination of standing pilots. Two 

small businesses, which both focus 

solely on cooking appliances, produce 

standing pilot-equipped products which 

comprise nearly half of their total 

annual gas product shipments and 

which they consider to be a 

differentiator from their larger, morediversified competitors. While all 

manufacturers of gas cooking appliances 

affected by today’s rule also make 

comparable cooking appliances with 

electronic ignition systems, these two 

small businesses are likely to be 

disproportionally impacted by a ban on 

standing pilot ignition systems. DOE 

contacted both manufacturers multiple 

times to better understand the potential 

business impact of a standing pilot ban 

and believes that, while standing pilot 

ignition systems are a differentiator, gas 

cooking products made by these 

manufacturers are primarily 

differentiated by non-standard unit 

widths and other features. Thus, while 

the potential elimination of standing 

pilot lights would lead to some decrease 

in differentiation, the main 

differentiators, notably non-standard 

unit sizes, will remain. DOE’s 

discussion of the impacts on the small 

manufacturers is treated in the 

regulatory flexibility section of today’s 

notice (see section VI. B.) 

At TSL 4, the analysis shows that the 

impact on INPV and cash flow 

continues to vary significantly 

depending on the manufacturers’ ability 

to pass on increases in MPCs to the 

customer. DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV at TSL 4 to range from 

approximately positive $28 million to 

¥$141 million, or a change in INPV of 

positive 9.83 percent to ¥49.12 percent. 

At this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 38 percent, 

to $10.9 million, compared to the base 

case value of $17.6 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. At this 

level, the component switch also carries 

substantial redesign costs. Sealed 

burners affect the design of the entire 

cooktop, thereby making product 

conversion and capital conversion costs 

much greater than a simpler component 

switch. At this TSL, if manufacturers 

can maintain their gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues, the impacts of 

higher manufacturing costs would be 

negated by the increases in total 

revenues. However, if manufacturers 

can only maintain their absolute dollar 

gross margin, then the impacts of TSL 

4 would significantly erode 

manufacturers’ profits. 

Electric Ovens. At TSL 1, the 

projected impact on INPV and cash flow 

for electric ovens is zero. At this level, 

DOE assumed both electric standard and 

self-cleaning ovens would have the 

same efficiency level as the baseline. 

Therefore, DOE reported no impacts at 

TSL 1. 

At TSL 2 and TSL 3, the impact on 

INPV and cash flow varies depending 

on manufacturers’ ability to maintain 

gross margin as a percentage of revenues 

as the MPCs increase as a result of 

standards. DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV at TSL 2 and TSL 3 to range from 

¥$8 million to ¥$19 million, or a 

change in INPV of approximately ¥.99 

percent to ¥2.43 percent. At these 

levels, the industry cash flow would 

decrease by approximately 12 percent, 

to $40.4 million, compared to the basecase value of $46.1 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. DOE does 

not expect significant impacts at TSL 2 

and TSL 3 because the investments 

needed to conform to the standards are 

relatively small in comparison to overall 

SG&A and R&D annual costs. In 

addition, product cost increases would 

benefit manufacturers if they can fully 

pass along MPC increases to customers. 

At TSL 4, the analysis shows that 

impacts on INPV and cash flow would 

vary significantly depending on the 

manufacturers’ ability to maintain gross 

margin as MPCs increase due to 

standards. DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV to range from approximately 

¥$10 million to ¥$469 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥1.27 percent to 

¥59.16 percent. At this level, the 

industry cash flow would decrease by 

approximately 194 percent, to ¥$43.3 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $46.1 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. At this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62096 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

level, the increase in efficiency also 

carries substantial redesign costs. 

Forced convection and reducing 

conduction losses affect the design of 

the entire cavity, thereby making 

product conversion and capital 

conversion costs much greater than a 

simpler component switch. In addition, 

if manufacturers can maintain their 

gross margin as a percentage of 

revenues, the impacts of higher 

manufacturing costs would be relatively 

small. However, if manufacturers can 

only maintain their absolute dollar gross 

margin, then the impacts of TSL 4 

would decrease the INPV of the industry 

by close to half. 

Gas Ovens. At TSL 1 and TSL 2, the 

impact on INPV and cash flow varies 

depending on manufacturers’ ability to 

fully maintain their gross margins as the 

MPC increases as a result of standards. 

These TSLs are equivalent to the 

elimination of standing pilot lights from 

gas cooking products. DOE estimated 

the impacts in INPV at TSL 1 and TSL 

2 to range from a ¥$7 million up to 

¥$10 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥1.57 percent up to ¥2.10 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 11 percent, 

to $25.6 million, compared to the base 

case value of $28.8 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. Since more 

than 80 percent of the equipment being 

sold is already at or above this level (i.e., 

most products do not have standing 

pilot lights), those manufacturers that 

do not fall below the efficiency levels 

specified by TSL 1 and TSL 2 would not 

have to make additional modifications 

to their product lines to conform to the 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE expects the lower end of 

the impacts to be reached, which 

indicates that industry revenues and 

costs are not significantly negatively 

impacted as long as manufacturers can 

maintain their gross margin as a 

percentage of revenues. The analysis 

shows that although the elimination of 

standing pilot lights may not 

significantly impact large 

manufacturers, small manufacturers that 

rely on revenues from these products 

would be impacted significantly. DOE’s 

discussion of the impacts on the small 

manufacturers is explained in further 

detail in the regulatory flexibility 

section of today’s notice (see section VI. 

B.) 

At TSL 3, the impact on INPV and 

cash flow continues to vary depending 

on the manufacturers’ ability to pass on 

increases in MPCs to the customer. DOE 

estimated the impacts in INPV at TSL 3 

to range from approximately ¥$6 

million to ¥$41 million, or a change in 

INPV of ¥1.38 percent to ¥8.68 

percent. At this level, the analysis 

shows that the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 27 percent, 

to $20.9 million, compared to the base 

case value of $28.8 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

At TSL 4, the impact on INPV and 

cash flow varies significantly depending 

on the manufacturers’ ability to pass on 

increases in MPCs to the customer. DOE 

estimated the impacts in INPV at TSL 4 

to range from approximately ¥$47 

million to ¥$181 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥10.04 percent to ¥38.80 

percent. At this level, the analysis 

shows that the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 190 percent, 

to ¥$26.0 million, compared to the base 

case value of $28.8 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. At this TSL, 

if manufacturers can maintain their 

gross margin as a percentage of 

revenues, the projected increase in total 

revenues negates the impacts of higher 

manufacturing costs. However, if 

manufacturers can only maintain their 

absolute dollar gross margin, then the 

impacts of TSL 4 would significantly 

erode manufacturers’ profits. 

ii. Microwave Ovens 

To assess the lower end of the range 

of potential impacts for the microwave 

oven industry, DOE considered the 

scenario reflecting the preservation of 

gross margin percentage. As production 

cost increases with efficiency, this 

scenario implies manufacturers will be 

able to maintain gross margins as a 

percentage of revenues. To assess the 

higher end of the range of potential 

impacts for the microwave oven 

industry, DOE considered the scenario 

reflecting preservation of gross margin 

in absolute dollars. Under this scenario, 

DOE assumed that the industry can 

maintain its gross margins in absolute 

dollars after the standard effective date. 

The industry would do so by passing 

through its increased costs to customers 

without increasing its gross margin in 

absolute dollars. Table V.34 and Table 

V.35 show MIA results related to the 

energy factor for each TSL using both 

markup scenarios described above for 

microwave oven manufacturers. 

TABLE V.34—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO (ENERGY FACTOR) 

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1a 2a 3a 4a 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 1,450 1,494 1,567 1,687 1,717 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 44 117 237 267 

(%) ...................................... ........................ 3.04% 8.09% 16.34% 18.44% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 225.0 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 300.0 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62097 

TABLE V.35—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO (ENERGY FACTOR) 

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1a 2a 3a 4a 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 1,450 1,250 1,064 775 284 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ (199) (386) (675) (1,165) 

(%) ...................................... ........................ ¥13.74% ¥26.62% ¥46.56% ¥80.39% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 225.0 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 60.0 75.0 90.0 300.0 

TSL 1a represents an improvement in 

cooking efficiency from the baseline 

level of 0.557 EF to 0.586 EF. At TSL 1a, 

the impact on INPV and cash flow 

varies greatly depending on the 

manufacturers and their ability to pass 

on increases in MPCs to the customer. 

DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at 

TSL 1a to range from less than $44 

million to ¥$199 million, or a change 

in INPV of 3.04 percent to ¥13.74 

percent. At this level, the industry cash 

flow decreases by approximately 18 

percent, to $71.7 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $87.3 million in 

the year leading up to the standards. 

TSL 2a represents an improvement in 

cooking efficiency from the baseline 

level of 0.557 EF to 0.588 EF. At TSL 2a, 

the impact on INPV and cash flow 

would be similar to TSL 1a and depend 

on whether manufacturers can fully 

recover the increases in MPCs from the 

customer. DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV at TSL 2a to range from $117 

million to ¥$386 million, or a change 

in INPV of 8.09 percent to ¥26.62 

percent. At this level, the industry cash 

flow decreases by approximately 22 

percent, to $67.9 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $87.3 million in 

the year leading up to the standards. 

TSL 3a represents an improvement in 

cooking efficiency from the baseline 

level of 0.557 EF to 0.597 EF. At TSL 3a, 

the impact on INPV and cash flow 

continues to vary depending on the 

manufacturers and their ability to pass 

on increases in MPCs to the customer. 

DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at 

TSL 3a to range from approximately 

$237 million to ¥$675 million, or a 

change in INPV of 16.34 percent to 

¥46.56 percent. At this level, the 

industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 27 percent, to $64.0 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $87.3 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

TSL 4a represents an improvement in 

cooking efficiency from the baseline 

level of 0.557 EF to 0.602 EF. At TSL 4a, 

DOE estimated the impacts in INPV to 

range from approximately $267 million 

to ¥$1,165 million, or a change in INPV 

of 18.44 percent to ¥80.39 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 101 percent, 

to ¥$1.0 million, compared to the basecase value of $87.3 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. At higher 

TSLs, manufacturers have a harder time 

fully passing on larger increases in 

MPCs to the customer. 

Due to the similarities in design 

requirements to meet each TSL, the 

results for each TSL are dependent on 

the ability of manufacturers to pass 

along increases in manufacturer 

production costs and the additional 

conversion costs. The engineering 

analysis assumes that each TSL adds an 

additional component switch-out. For 

example, to reach TSL 2, manufacturers 

must switch the fan in addition to 

switching the power supply required to 

meet TSL 1. The high conversion costs 

associated with these switches drive 

INPV negative if incremental costs are 

only partially passed along to 

consumers. If the incremental costs are 

fully passed along to consumers, which 

manufacturers stated was unlikely due 

to fierce competition in the industry, the 

higher purchase prices are enough to 

overcome the high conversion and 

capital conversion costs, thereby making 

INPV positive. The magnitude of the 

positive cash flow impact under the 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

scenario and the negative cash flow 

impact under the preservation of gross 

margin (absolute dollars) scenario 

depends on the incremental cost of 

standards-compliant products. The 

higher the relative cost, the larger the 

impact on operating revenue and cash 

flow in the years following the effective 

date of the standard. Since higher TSLs 

correspond to higher relative costs, the 

impacts of the markup scenarios are 

greater at higher TSLs. 

Table V.36 and Table V.37—show the 

standby power MIA results for each TSL 

using both markup scenarios described 

above for microwave ovens 

manufacturers. 

TABLE V.36—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO (STANDBY POWER) 

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1b 2b 3b 4b 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 1,450 1,428 1,414 1,413 1,415 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62098 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.36—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO (STANDBY POWER)—Continued 

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1b 2b 3b 4b 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ (22) (35) (37) (35) 

(%) ...................................... ........................ ¥1.50% ¥2.44% ¥2.52% ¥2.40% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ ¥37.5 67.5 82.5 135.0 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ ¥3.8 4.1 4.5 7.5 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ ¥41.3 71.6 87.0 142.5 

TABLE V.37—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

ABSOLUTE DOLLARS MARKUP SCENARIO (STANDBY POWER) 

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario 

Units Base case 

TSL 

1b 2b 3b 4b 

INPV .................................... (2006 $ millions) ................. 1,450 1,424 1,402 1,378 1,278 

Change in INPV .................. (2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ (26) (48) (71) (172) 

(%) ...................................... ........................ ¥1.77% ¥3.28% ¥4.92% ¥11.87% 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Product 

Conversion Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 37.5 67.5 82.5 135.0 

Amended Energy Conservation Standards Capital 

Investments .....................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 3.8 4.1 4.5 7.5 

Total Investment 

Required ...................

(2006 $ millions) ................. ........................ 41.3 71.6 87.0 142.5 

TSL 1b represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 2.0 W. At TSL 1b, the impact 

on INPV and cash flow varies 

depending on the manufacturers’ ability 

to pass on increases in MPCs to the 

customer. DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV at TSL 1b to range from less than 

¥$22 million to ¥$26 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥1.50 percent to 

¥1.77 percent. At this level, the 

industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 13 percent, to $76.1 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $87.3 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

TSL 2b represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 1.5 W. At TSL 2b, the impact 

on INPV and cash flow would be similar 

to TSL 1b and depend on whether 

manufacturers can fully recover the 

increases in MPCs from the customer. 

DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at 

TSL 2b to range from ¥$35 million to 

¥$48 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥2.44 percent to ¥3.28 percent. At this 

level, the industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 22 percent, to $68.2 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $87.3 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

TSL 3b represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 1.0 W. At TSL 3b, the impact 

on INPV and cash flow continues to 

vary depending on the manufacturers 

and their ability to pass on increases in 

MPCs to the customer. DOE estimated 

the impacts in INPV at TSL 3b to range 

from approximately ¥$37 million to 

¥$71 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥2.52 percent to ¥4.92 percent. At this 

level, the industry cash flow decreases 

by approximately 27 percent, to $64.1 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $87.3 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. 

TSL 4b represents an improvement in 

standby power from the baseline level of 

4.0 W to 0.02 W. At TSL 4b, DOE 

estimated the impacts in INPV to range 

from approximately ¥$35 million to 

¥$172 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥2.40 percent to ¥11.87 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 43 percent, 

to $49.3 million, compared to the basecase value of $87.3 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. At higher 

TSLs, manufacturers have a harder time 

fully passing on larger increases in 

MPCs to the customer. At TSL 4b, the 

conversion costs are higher than for TSL 

1b, TSL 2b, and TSL 3b because the 

design of all microwave platforms must 

be more significantly altered. 

For standby power standards, 

conversion costs increase at higher TSLs 

as the complexity of further lowering 

standby power increases, substantially 

driving up engineering time and also 

increasing the testing and product 

development time. If the increased 

production costs are fully passed on to 

consumers (the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario), the 

operating revenue from higher prices is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62099 

not enough to overcome the negative 

impacts from the substantial conversion 

costs. The incremental costs are small 

for each TSL, meaning the positive 

impact on cash flows is small compared 

to the conversion costs. As a result of 

the small incremental costs and large 

conversion expenses, INPV is negative 

for all TSLs under the preservation of 

gross margin percentage scenario. If the 

incremental costs are not fully passed 

along to customers (the preservation of 

gross margin (absolute dollars) 

scenario), the negative impacts on INPV 

are amplified at each TSL. 

iii. Commercial Clothes Washers 

For CCWs, the major source of 

uncertainty voiced by manufacturers 

during the interviews is the impact of 

higher standards on the number of 

CCWs sold. Pricing and profit margin 

issues were not emphasized as they 

were for cooking products. Future 

product sales are particularly important 

considering the high capital costs 

(particularly design costs) in 

comparison to the small number of 

products sold. In light of the concern 

over future shipments, DOE modeled 

two MIA scenarios, based on two 

shipment projections from the NIA. 

To assess the lower end of the range 

of potential impacts for the CCW 

industry, DOE considered a scenario 

wherein unit shipments will not be 

impacted regardless of new energy 

conservation standards—this scenario is 

called the base-case shipments scenario. 

To assess the higher end of the range of 

potential impacts for the CCW industry, 

DOE considered a scenario in which 

total industry shipments would 

decrease due to the combined effects of 

increases in purchase price and 

decreases in operating costs due to new 

energy conservation standards—this 

scenario is called the price elastic of 

demand scenario. In both scenarios, it is 

assumed that manufacturers will be able 

to maintain the same gross margins (as 

a percentage of revenues) that is 

currently obtained in the base case. 

Table V.38 and Table V.39 show the 

MIA results for each TSL using both 

shipment scenarios described above for 

CCW manufacturers. 

TABLE V.38—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS WITH BASE CASE SHIPMENTS

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup with base case shipments 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ...................... (2006 $ millions) ... 56 59 52 41 38 26 

Change in INPV .... (2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 4 (4) (15) (18) (30) 

(%) ........................ ........................ 6.51% ¥6.37% ¥26.50% ¥32.02% ¥53.13% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product Conversion 

Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 0.00 18.00 33.00 36.70 49.50 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital Investments.

(2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 0.00 1.60 2.60 3.35 5.90 

Total Investment Required.(2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 0.0 19.6 35.6 40.1 55.4 

TABLE V.39—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS WITH PRICE ELASTICITY OF

DEMAND SHIPMENTS

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup with price elasticity of demand shipments 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ...................... (2006 $ millions) ... 56 58 50 38 35 23 

Change in INPV .... (2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 3 (6) (17) (20) (32) 

(%) ........................ ........................ 4.91% ¥10.27% ¥31.09% ¥36.83% ¥58.19% 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Product Conversion 

Expenses.

(2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 0.00 18.00 33.00 36.70 49.50 

Amended Energy 

Conservation 

Standards Capital Investments.

(2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 0.00 1.60 2.60 3.35 5.90 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62100 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

89The 2006 Annual Survey of Manufacturers is 

available at: http://www.census.gov/mcd/ 

asmhome.html. 

90The 2006 Current Industry Report is available 

at http://www.census.gov/cir/www/alpha.html. 

TABLE V.39—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS WITH PRICE ELASTICITY OF

DEMAND SHIPMENTS—Continued 

Preservation of gross margin percentage markup with price elasticity of demand shipments 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Total Investment Required.(2006 $ millions) ... ........................ 0.0 19.6 35.6 40.1 55.4 

At TSL 1, the impact on INPV and 

cash flow varies depending on the 

manufacturers’ ability to maintain 

revenues as shipments decrease due to 

the price elasticity. DOE estimated the 

impacts in INPV at TSL 1 to range from 

positive $3.6 million to positive $2.7 

million, or a change in INPV of 6.51 

percent to 4.91 percent. At this level, 

the industry cash flow does not decrease 

from the base-case value of $3.8 million 

in the year leading up to the standards. 

Since all manufacturers have toploading and front-loading washers 

already above this level, DOE assumed 

that there would be no product 

conversion or conversion capital costs. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from ¥$3.5 million to 

¥$5.7 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥6.37 percent to ¥10.27 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 153 percent, 

to ¥$2.0 million, compared to the basecase value of $3.8 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. To conform 

to the standards at TSL 2, DOE 

estimated that at least one manufacturer 

will need to redesign and retool a line 

of top-loading washers that falls below 

this standard level. Since over 88 

percent of front-loading washers exceed 

this level, DOE assumed that there 

would be relatively small product 

conversion and conversion capital costs 

for these washers. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from ¥$14.7 million 

to ¥$17.3 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥26.5 percent to ¥31.09 percent. At 

this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 320 percent, 

to ¥$8.3 million, compared to the base 

case value of $3.8 million in the year 

leading up to the standards. Since over 

88 percent of front-loading washers 

exceed this level, DOE assumed that 

there would be relatively small product 

conversion and conversion capital costs 

for these washers. However, at TSL 3 

manufacturers stated that significant 

product redesigns and line retooling 

would be required to conform to the 

top-loading standard. Beyond the 

concerns captured in the GRIM model, 

other issues were raised by 

manufacturers at TSL 3. For top-loading 

CCWs, multiple manufacturers stated 

that customers could see a reduction in 

wash quality or reject new designs 

based on a perceived reduction in wash 

quality. As a consequence they believe 

that a significant portion of the industry 

could potentially shift from top-loading 

designs to front-loading designs. For 

manufacturers that do not produce large 

volumes of front-loading washers this 

would require significant capital to 

expand front-loading production lines 

and may force them to redesign their 

current models to reduce cost. The 

uncertainty in product class shifting 

adds to the perceived financial risks of 

adopting a TSL 3 for front-loading 

washers. The Department seeks 

comment on the possible magnitude of 

this shift. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV at TSL 4 to range from ¥$17.8 

million to ¥$20.5 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥32.02 percent to ¥36.83 

percent. At this level, the industry cash 

flow decreases by approximately 367 

percent, to ¥$10.0 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $3.8 million in 

the year leading up to the standards. As 

with TSL 3, the top-loading standard 

remains at max-tech at TSL 4, and the 

impacts as previously stated for this 

product class. Currently, 97 percent of 

front-loading washers shipped do not 

meet TSL 4, resulting in multiple 

manufacturers having to also redesign 

existing front-loading products to 

conform to the standard. The $8.1 

million in product conversion and 

capital conversion costs to redesign and 

retool for the front-loading standard, 

while not appearing that substantial on 

a nominal basis, are significant for 

manufacturers due to low volumes of 

front-loading washers. Adjusting for 

shipment volumes, investing $8.1 

million in front-loading washers is 

equivalent to investing over $26 million 

in top-loading washers. These 

investment costs are also high compared 

to the industry value of $19 million for 

front-loading washers. Consequently, it 

could be difficult for manufactures to 

justify the investments necessary to 

reach TSL 4 for front-loading washers. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimated the impacts 

in INPV to range from ¥$29.5 million 

to ¥$32.3 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥53.13 percent to ¥58.19 percent. 

At this level, the industry cash flow 

decreases by approximately 527 percent, 

to ¥$16.1 million, compared to the 

base-case value of $3.8 million in the 

year leading up to the standards. The 

top-loading standard remains at max 

tech at TSL 5. Almost all front-loading 

washers currently sold do not meet TSL 

5. Since most manufacturers do not 

have existing washers that are close to 

meeting TSL 5, the redesign and tooling 

costs drive INPV extremely negative. At 

TSL 5, manufactures would have to 

invest $23.4 million in front-loading 

washer in an industry valued at $19 

million. It could be difficult for 

manufactures to justify the investments 

necessary to reach max tech for both 

top-loading and front-loading washers. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the impacts 

of energy conservation standards on 

cooking products and CCW 

manufacturing employment, DOE used 

the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of employees 

in the base case and at each TSL from 

2007 through 2042 for the conventional 

cooking products, microwave oven, and 

CCW industries. DOE used statistical 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 

Annual Survey of Manufactures 89 (2006 

ASM) and 2006 Current Industry 

Report 90 (2006 CIR), the results of the 

engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to estimate the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

are a function of the labor intensity of 

the equipment, the sales volume, and an 

implicit assumption that wages remain 

fixed in real terms over time. (DOE 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62101 

91The 2006 ASM provides the following 

definition: ‘The ‘production workers’ number 

includes workers (up through the line-supervisor 

level) engaged in fabricating, processing, 

assembling, inspecting, receiving, storing, handling, 

packing, warehousing, shipping (but not 

delivering), maintenance, repair, janitorial and 

guard services, product development, auxiliary 

production for plant’s own use (e.g., power plant), 

recordkeeping, and other services closely associated 

with these production operations at the 

establishment covered by the report. Employees 

above the working-supervisor level are excluded 

from this item.’’ 

notes that the MIA’s analysis detailing 

impacts on employment focuses 

specifically on the production workers 

manufacturing the covered products in 

question, rather than a manufacturer’s 

broader operations. Thus, the estimated 

number of impacted employees in the 

MIA is separate and distinct from the 

total number of employees used to 

determine whether a manufacturer is a 

small business for purposes of analysis 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.) 

The estimates of production workers 

in this section only cover workers up to 

and including the line-supervisor level 

that are directly involved in fabricating 

and assembling a product within the 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

facility. In addition, workers that 

perform services that are closely 

associated with production operations 

are included. Employees above the 

working-supervisor level are excluded 

from the count of production workers. 

Thus, the labor associated with nonproduction functions (e.g., factory 

supervision, advertisement, sales) is 

explicitly not covered.91 In addition, 

DOE’s estimates only account for 

production workers that manufacture 

the specific products covered by this 

rulemaking. For example, a worker on a 

clothes dryer production line would not 

be included in the estimate of the 

number of CCW production workers. 

Finally, this analysis also does not 

factor in the dependence by some 

manufacturers on production volume to 

make their operations viable. For 

example, should a major line of 

business cease or move, a production 

facility may no longer have the 

manufacturing scale to obtain volume 

discounts on its purchases nor be able 

to justify maintaining major capital 

equipment. Thus, the impact on a 

manufacturing facility due to a line 

closure may affect more employees than 

just the production workers, but again 

this analysis focuses on the production 

workers directly impacted. 

i. Conventional Cooking Products 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that 

there are 2,146 U.S. production workers 

in the conventional cooking products 

industry. Using the CIR data, DOE 

estimates that approximately 27 percent 

of conventional cooking products sold 

in the U.S. are manufactured 

domestically. Today’s notice estimates 

the impacts on U.S. production workers 

in the conventional cooking products 

industry as a result of the trial energy 

conservation standards as show in Table 

V.40. 

TABLE V.40—CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN 2012 IN THE CONVENTIONAL

COOKING PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2012 ..... 2,146 2,153 2,163 2,181 2,731 

Change in Total Number of Domestic Production Workers 

in 2012 .............................................................................. ........................ 7 17 35 585 

DOE expects no significant direct 

employment impacts among 

conventional cooking products 

manufacturers for TSL 1 through TSL 3. 

Generally, DOE expects that there 

would be positive employment impacts 

among domestic conventional cooking 

products manufacturers for TSL 1 

through TSL 3. Because production 

employment expenditures are assumed 

to be a fixed percentage of COGS and 

the MPCs increase with more efficient 

products, labor tracks the increased 

prices in the GRIM. The GRIM predicts 

a gradual increase in domestic 

employment after standards. Because 

there are large price increases for TSL 4, 

the GRIM predicts an increase in 

employment. However, it is likely that 

the positive impacts in employment due 

to the incremental cost increase 

overstate the impacts that would result 

from increased shipments over time. 

This overstatement is caused by the 

assumption of constant labor content as 

a percentage of revenue. For TSL 4 in 

particular, the design options involve 

component substitution which 

substantially increase the cost of 

purchase parts but should not result in 

a proportionate increase in labor costs. 

DOE reached this conclusion 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 15 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice. The 

employment conclusions do not account 

for the possible relocation of domestic 

jobs to lower-labor-cost countries 

because the potential relocation of U.S. 

jobs is uncertain and highly speculative. 

Because the labor impacts in the GRIM 

do not take relocation into account, the 

labor impacts would be different if 

manufacturers chose to relocate to 

lower-cost countries. The relatively 

small capital costs at TSL 1 through TSL 

3 make relocation less likely. However, 

at all TSLs, manufacturers face 

significant product conversion costs that 

correspond to redesigning products and 

testing components on all platforms. 

These significant conversion costs put 

pressure on manufacturers at all TSLs to 

cut costs. At TSL 4, manufacturers face 

both significant capital and product 

conversion costs, which put even 

greater pressure on cost reduction that 

could ultimately lead to relocation. 

ii. Microwave Ovens 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that 

there are 229 U.S. production workers 

in the microwave oven industry. Using 

the CIR data, DOE estimates that 

approximately four percent of 

microwave ovens sold in the U.S. are 

manufactured domestically. Today’s 

notice estimates the impacts on U.S. 

production workers in the microwave 

oven industry as a result of the trial 

energy conservation and standby power 

standards as show in Table V.41 and 

Table V.42. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62102 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.41—CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN 2012 IN THE MICROWAVE OVEN

INDUSTRY FOR ENERGY FACTOR STANDARDS

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2012 ..... 229 246 264 292 327 

Change in Total Number of Domestic Production Workers 

in 2012 .............................................................................. ........................ 17 34 62 98 

TABLE V.42—CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN 2012 IN THE MICROWAVE OVEN

INDUSTRY FOR STANDBY POWER STANDARDS

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2012 ..... 229 230 230 232 239 

Change in Total Number of Domestic Production Workers 

in 2012 .............................................................................. ........................ 0 1 2 9 

For all energy factor and standby 

power TSLs, the GRIM calculates an 

increase in domestic employment due to 

energy conservation standards because 

production labor expenditures are 

assumed to be a fixed percentage of 

COGS and MPCs increase with moreefficient products. For all TSLs, the 

GRIM employment results agree with 

the bottom-up analysis in the 

engineering analysis. The incremental 

costs for more efficient components at 

all TSLs are relatively small. In response 

to standards, domestic manufacturers 

would most likely not alter employment 

levels much because inserting a more 

efficient component does not 

necessarily require more labor. 

DOE reached this conclusion 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 15 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice. The 

employment conclusions do not account 

for the possible relocation of domestic 

jobs to lower-labor-cost countries 

because the potential relocation of U.S. 

jobs is uncertain and highly speculative. 

Since more than 95 percent of 

microwave ovens are already imported 

and the employment impacts in the 

GRIM are small, the actual impacts on 

domestic employment would depend on 

whether any U.S. manufacturer decided 

to shift remaining U.S. production to 

lower-cost countries. 

iii. Commercial Clothes Washers 

Using the GRIM, DOE calculates that 

there are 178 U.S. production workers 

in the commercial clothes washer 

industry. Using the CIR data, DOE 

estimates that approximately 81 percent 

of CCW sold in the U.S. are 

manufactured domestically. Today’s 

notice estimates the impacts on U.S. 

production workers in the CCW 

industry impacted by energy 

conservation standards as show in Table 

V.43. 

TABLE V.43—CHANGE IN TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN 2012 IN THE CCW INDUSTRY

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production 

Workers in 2012 ................................... 178 196 216 222 224 227 

Change in Total Number of Domestic 

Production Workers in 2012 ................. ........................ 18 38 44 46 48 

DOE expects that there would be 

positive employment impacts among 

domestic commercial clothes washer 

manufacturers for TSL 1 through TSL 5. 

Because production employment 

expenditures are assumed to be a fixed 

percentage of COGS and the MPCs 

increase with more efficient products, 

labor tracks the increased prices in the 

GRIM. The GRIM predicts a steady level 

of domestic employment after standards 

at a level based on the increase in 

relative price. 

DOE reached this conclusion 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 15 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice. The 

employment conclusions do not account 

for the possible relocation of domestic 

jobs to lower-labor-cost countries 

because the potential relocation of U.S. 

jobs is uncertain and highly speculative. 

The GRIM shows the employment levels 

rising at higher TSLs. If all standardscompliant CCWs are produced in the 

United States, the employment levels 

would be expected to be reasonably 

accurate. More-efficient washers are 

more complex and require more labor. 

However, approximately 80 percent of 

CCWs are currently produced 

domestically. The actual impacts on 

domestic employment after standards 

would be different if any U.S. 

manufacturer decided to shift remaining 

U.S. production to lower-cost countries. 

Due to the uncertainty in the business 

decisions of where to manufacture 

washers after standards, DOE presents a 

range of potential employment impacts 

if the potential for relocation is 

considered. The proposed standard 

could result in adding 44 production 

workers (if all manufacturers continue 

to produce washers in their existing 

U.S. facilities) to losing 178 production 

workers (if all U.S. manufacturers 

source standards-compliant washers or 

shift U.S. production abroad). 

Based on the commercial washer 

revenues reported in Appendix 13–A 

and using the employment assumptions 

in section IV.G, DOE estimates there are 

approximately 150 production workers 

at the LVM manufacturing products 

directly covered by this rulemaking. In 

addition, DOE estimates that there are 

20 non-production employees 

attributable to CCWs at the facility. The 

domestic facility also manufactures 

residential top-loading washers, 

standard dryers, front-loading 

residential washers, washer-extractors, 

and tumbler dryers. If the LVM decided 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62103 

to no longer produce any soft-mount 

washers or standard dryers at the 

facility because it could not sell dryers 

without selling washers, approximately 

292 production and 40 non-production 

jobs would be lost. Including all 

production workers involved in covered 

and non-covered products, the closure 

of the LVM domestic manufacturing 

plant would equate to a loss of 

approximately 600 factory employees. 

A further discussion of the LVM and 

the potential impacts of relocation on 

employment for the CCW industry at 

other TSLs is presented in Chapter 13 of 

the TSD. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

i. Conventional Cooking Products 

According to the manufacturers of gas 

cooking products, amended energy 

conservation standards should not 

significantly affect production capacity, 

except at the max-tech levels. For 

example, in interviews, all 

manufacturers of cooking products with 

standing pilot lights stated they also 

manufacture products that do not use 

this type of ignition. Since 

manufacturers of gas cooking appliances 

with standing pilot ignitions typically 

also sell otherwise-identical appliances 

with electronic ignition systems, 

manufacturers stated that they expected 

impacts on manufacturing capacity due 

to changes in the ignition systems to be 

minimal. Thus, DOE believes 

manufacturers will be able to maintain 

manufacturing capacity levels and 

continue to meet market demand under 

amended energy conservation 

standards. For most other products and 

efficiencies, manufacturers can modify 

existing equipment to accommodate 

redesigned products with more efficient 

components without significantly 

impacting production volumes. 

However, max-tech levels for standard 

electric ovens and standard gas ovens 

strand some existing manufacturing 

equipment and tooling, and would 

require substantial product 

development and retooling. DOE 

believes setting a standard at this level 

could lead to short term capacity 

problems for these products if 

manufacturers cannot make the tooling 

changes in time to meet the standard. 

For the other efficiencies, manufacturers 

will be able to retool without causing 

capacity constraints. 

ii. Microwave Ovens 

According to the majority of 

microwave oven manufacturers, new 

energy conservation standards will not 

significantly affect production capacity. 

As with conventional cooking products, 

any necessary microwave oven 

redesigns involve component switches 

that will not change the fundamental 

assembly of the equipment. However, 

manufacturers anticipate significant 

changes to tooling for TSL 4 for energy 

factor standards and minor changes to 

tooling at all TSLs for standby power 

standards. For all efficiency levels for 

energy factor and standby power 

standards, the most significant 

conversion costs are the research and 

development (R&D), testing, and 

certification of products with moreefficient components, which does not 

affect production line capacity. Thus, 

DOE believes manufacturers will be able 

to maintain manufacturing capacity 

levels and continue to meet market 

demand under new energy conservation 

standards. 

iii. Commercial Clothes Washers 

According to the majority of CCW 

manufacturers, new energy conservation 

standards could potentially impact 

manufacturers’ production capacity 

depending on the efficiency level 

required. Necessary redesigns of frontloading and top-loading CCWs will not 

change the fundamental assembly of the 

product or cause a drastic increase in 

the volume requirements of one type of 

washer. Thus, DOE believes 

manufacturers will be able to maintain 

manufacturing capacity levels and 

continue to meet market demand under 

new energy conservation standards as 

long as manufacturers continue to offer 

top-loading and front-loading washers. 

However, a very high efficiency 

standard for top-loading clothes washers 

could cause a manufacturer to abandon 

further manufacture of top-loading 

clothes washers after the effective date 

(due to concerns about wash quality, for 

example). Instead of manufacturing toploading clothes washers, the 

manufacturers could elect to switch its 

entire production over to front-loading 

clothes washers. Since top-loading and 

front-loading clothes washers share few, 

if any parts, are built on completely 

separate assembly lines, and are built at 

very different production volumes, a 

manufacturer may not be able to make 

a platform switch from top-loading to 

front-loading washers without 

significant impacts on product 

development and capital expenses, 

along with capacity constraints. 

For example, multiple manufacturers 

stated during interviews that frontloading CCWs represent a relatively 

small segment of their total production 

volumes. Thus, their front-loading 

production capacity may need to be 

substantially expanded to meet the 

demand that their top-loading 

production lines used to meet. This 

expansion could possibly affect capacity 

until new production lines come on line 

to service demand. In addition, 

manufacturers stated that the higher 

prices of front-loading washers could 

lead to a decrease in shipments. This 

could lead to a permanently lower 

production capacity as machines are 

repaired and the product lifetime of 

existing washers is extended. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

As discussed above, using average 

cost assumptions to develop an industry 

cash flow estimate is not adequate for 

assessing differential impacts among 

subgroups of manufacturers. Small 

manufacturers, niche players, or 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that differs significantly from 

the industry average could be affected 

differently. DOE used the results of the 

industry characterization to group 

manufacturers exhibiting similar 

characteristics. 

As outlined earlier, two small cooking 

appliance businesses and a low-volume 

manufacturer of CCWs will be affected 

disproportionately by any energy 

efficiency regulation in their respective 

industries. These businesses are focused 

on one specific market segment and are 

orders of magnitude smaller than their 

diversified competitors. Due to this 

combination of market concentration 

and size, all of them are at risk of 

material harm to their business, 

depending on the TSL chosen. 

For the small cooking appliance 

businesses, the primary issue is whether 

an amended standard would continue to 

allow gas-fired appliances with standing 

pilots to be sold. Two small businesses 

indicated that 25 percent or more of 

their entire production consists of such 

niche products, now that most 

manufacturers have switched to 

electronic ignition in their gas-fired 

cooking appliances. See section VI.B of 

this notice for detail discussion of 

possible impacts on small cooking 

appliance businesses. 

The CCW LVM indicated that it could 

not manufacture top-loading washers 

above an MEF of 1.42 (TSL 1). If DOE 

sets a standard above TSL 1, the LVM 

would be forced to design a new toploading washer, offer only front-loading 

washers, or choose to exit the CCW 

market altogether. Due to its small size, 

the investment required for the LVM to 

design a more efficient top-loading 

washer would put the company at a 

competitive disadvantage. If the LVM no 

longer offers top-loading washers and 

has to expand its front-loading 

production lines, it would likely cause 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62104 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

92For example, the Interstate Mercury Education 

& Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) is a coalition 

of northeast states coordinating the banning of 

products containing mercury (see http:// 

www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc.cfm). 

93Consistent with Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993), DOE follows the guidance of OMB 

regarding methodologies and procedures for 

regulatory impact analysis that affect more than one 

agency. In reporting energy and environmental 

benefits from energy conservation standards, DOE 

will report both discounted and undiscounted (i.e., 

zero discount-rate) values. 

it to cease CCW production altogether, 

resulting in significant impacts to the 

industry. Currently, the LVM’s toploading washers account for more than 

half of the company’s CCW revenues 

and three-quarters of its CCW 

shipments. To shift all top-loading 

CCWs to front-loading washers at 

current production volumes would 

require substantial investments that the 

company may not be able to justify. In 

addition, the LVM derives 87 percent of 

its clothes washer revenue from CCWs, 

so its sales in the RCW market would be 

too low to justify continuing any toploading clothes washer manufacturing. 

While the LVM currently manufactures 

a front-loading clothes washer, it does 

so at a cost disadvantage compared to its 

competitors. The potential investment 

and risk required to develop a costcompetitive clothes washer that deviates 

significantly from its traditional toploader agitator design could be too great 

for the LVM’s current owners. The LVM 

could decide to exit the market rather 

than take this risk which could cause 

employment impacts in the CCW 

industry. Further detail and separate 

analysis of impacts on the LVM are 

found in Chapter 13 of the TSD 

accompanying this notice. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden is the cumulative impact of 

multiple DOE standards and the 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies and States that affect the 

manufacturers of a covered product or 

equipment. DOE believes that a 

standard level is not economically 

justified if it contributes to an 

unacceptable cumulative regulatory 

burden. While any one regulation may 

not impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

several existing or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. Assessing the impact of a 

single regulation may overlook this 

cumulative regulatory burden. 

Companies that produce a wider 

range of regulated products may be 

faced with more capital and product 

development expenditures than their 

competitors. This can prompt those 

companies to exit the market or reduce 

their product offerings, potentially 

reducing competition. Smaller 

companies can be especially affected, 

since they have lower sales volumes 

over which to amortize the costs of 

compliance with new regulations. 

In addition to DOE’s energy 

conservation regulations for cooking 

products and CCWs, several other 

existing Federal regulations and 

pending regulations apply to these 

products and other equipment produced 

by the same manufacturers. DOE 

recognizes that each regulation can 

significantly impact manufacturers’ 

financial operations. Multiple 

regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can quickly strain its 

profits and possibly cause it to exit from 

the market. The most significant of these 

additional regulations include the 

standby power requirements, several 

additional Federal and State energy 

conservation standards, the Restriction 

of Hazardous Substance Directive 

(RoHS), and international energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures. 

Additional investments necessary to 

meet regulations in addition to the 

standards prescribed by this rulemaking 

could have significant impacts on 

manufacturers of cooking products and 

CCWs. For this NOPR, DOE also 

identified other regulations these 

manufacturers are facing for these and 

other products and equipment they 

manufacture within three years prior to 

and three years after the anticipated 

effective date of the amended energy 

conservation standards for cooking 

products and CCWs. 

Most manufacturers interviewed for 

this rulemaking are already compliant 

with the RoHS directive. The most 

significant cumulative regulatory 

burden for gas cooking appliance 

manufacturers is a State-by-State 

restriction on mercury,92 which affects 

the gas valves used in their appliances. 

Most gas cooking appliance 

manufacturers have already eliminated 

mercury switches or already have plans 

in place to do so. However, all 

appliance manufacturers are concerned 

about potential restrictions of other 

hazardous substances in the future, such 

as fire protection materials, which could 

be costly to remove from existing 

products. 

Most manufacturers interviewed also 

sell products to other countries with 

energy conservation and standby 

standards. Manufacturers may incur a 

substantial cost to the extent that there 

are overlapping testing and certification 

requirements in other markets besides 

the United States. However, since DOE 

only has the authority to set standards 

on products sold in the United States, 

DOE only accounts for domestic 

compliance costs in its calculation of 

product conversion expenses for 

products covered in this rulemaking. 

For more details, see chapter 13 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2042 that would be expected to 

result from amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE compared 

the energy consumption of the 

appliance products under the base case 

to energy consumption of these 

products under the TSLs. Tables V.44 

through V.47 show the forecasted 

national energy savings at each TSL for 

conventional cooking products, 

microwave ovens (two tables), and 

CCWs, respectively. For conventional 

cooking products, summing the energy 

savings for all products classes across 

each TSL considered in this rulemaking 

would result in significant energy 

savings, with the amount of savings 

increasing with higher efficiency 

standards. The same is true for 

microwave ovens and CCWs. For CCWs, 

summing the energy and water savings 

for both product classes across each TSL 

considered would result in significant 

energy and water savings. Chapter 11 of 

the TSD accompanying this notice 

provides additional details on the NES 

values reported below, as well as 

discounted NES results (and discounted 

national water savings results for CCWs) 

based on discount rates of three and 

seven percent. DOE reports both 

undiscounted and discounted values of 

energy savings. Discounted energy 

savings represent a policy perspective 

wherein energy savings farther in the 

future are less significant than energy 

savings closer to the present.93


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62105 

TABLE V.44—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

National energy savings (quads) 

TSL Electric coil 

cooktops 

Electric 

smooth 

cooktops 

Gas 

cooktops 

Electric 

standard 

ovens 

Electric selfclean ovens Gas standard ovens Gas selfclean ovens Total 

1 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.14 

2 ....................................... 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.23 

3 ....................................... 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.32 

4 ....................................... 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.50 

TABLE V.45—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS (ENERGY FACTOR) 

TSL National energy 

savings (quads) 

1a ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.08 

2a ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.09 

3a ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.11 

4a ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.12 

TABLE V.46—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MICROWAVE OVENS (STANDBY POWER) 

TSL National energy 

savings (quads) 

1b ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.23 

2b ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.33 

3b ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.45 

4b ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.69 

TABLE V.47—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

TSL 

Top-Loading Front-Loading Total 

National 

energy 

savings 

(quads) 

National 

water 

savings 

(trillion gallons) 

National 

energy 

savings 

(quads) 

National 

water 

savings 

(trillion gallons) 

National 

energy 

savings 

(quads) 

National 

water 

savings 

(trillion gallons) 

1 ....................................................................................... 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 

2 ....................................................................................... 0.11 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.16 

3 ....................................................................................... 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.19 

4 ....................................................................................... 0.15 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.21 

5 ....................................................................................... 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.24 

b. Net Present Value 

The NPV analysis is a measure of the 

cumulative benefit or cost of energy 

conservation standards to the Nation. In 

accordance with the OMB’s guidelines 

on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular 

A–4, section E, September 17, 2003), 

DOE calculated NPV using both a sevenpercent and a three-percent real 

discount rate. The seven-percent rate is 

an estimate of the average before-tax rate 

of return on private capital in the U.S. 

economy, and reflects the returns on 

real estate and small business capital as 

well as corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, since recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return to 

capital to be near this rate. DOE also 

used the three-percent rate to capture 

the potential effects of standards on 

private consumption (e.g., through 

higher prices for equipment and the 

purchase of reduced amounts of energy). 

This rate represents the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value. This rate 

can be approximated by the real rate of 

return on long-term government debt 

(i.e., yield on Treasury notes minus 

annual rate of change in the Consumer 

Price Index), which has averaged about 

three percent on a pre-tax basis for the 

last 30 years. 

Tables V.48 through V.51 show the 

forecasted NPV at each TSL for 

conventional cooking products, 

microwave ovens, and CCWs. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62106 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.48—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS (IMPACTS FOR

UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042) 

TSL 

NPV (billion 2006$) 

Electric 

coil 

cooktops 

Electric smooth 

cooktops Gas cooktops 

Electric 

standard 

ovens 

Electric selfclean ovens Gas standard 

ovens 

Gas self-clean 

ovens Total 

Discount 

rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate Discount rate 

7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 

1 ...... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.61 

2 ...... 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.50 0.11 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.39 1.19 

3 ...... 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.50 0.11 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.11 ¥0.01 0.19 0.38 1.37 

4 ...... 0.07 0.23 ¥7.26 ¥13.89 ¥0.73 ¥1.11 ¥0.81 ¥1.37 ¥2.77 ¥5.21 ¥0.91 ¥1.76 ¥0.14 ¥0.04 ¥12.55 ¥23.14 

TABLE V.49—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY FACTOR (IMPACTS FOR

UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042) 

TSL 

NPV (billion 2006$) 

7% 

Discount rate 

3% 

Discount rate 

1a ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥0.61 ¥1.07 

2a ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥1.60 ¥2.96 

3a ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥3.06 ¥5.72 

4a ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥4.94 ¥9.28 

TABLE V.50—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER (IMPACTS FOR

UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042) 

TSL 

NPV (billion 2006$) 

7% 

Discount rate 

3% 

Discount rate 

1b ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.91 2.03 

2b ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.25 2.79 

3b ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.56 3.52 

4b ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.61 3.90 

TABLE V.51—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS (IMPACTS FOR

UNITS SOLD FROM 2012 TO 2042) 

TSL 

NPV (billion 2006$) 

Top-Loading Front-Loading Total 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

3% Discount 

rate 

1 ............................................................... ¥0.006 0.03 0.004 0.01 ¥0.001 0.04 

2 ............................................................... 0.29 0.77 0.03 0.06 0.32 0.83 

3 ............................................................... 0.43 1.10 0.03 0.06 0.46 1.16 

4 ............................................................... 0.43 1.10 0.07 0.16 0.50 1.27 

5 ............................................................... 0.43 1.10 0.12 0.29 0.55 1.39 

c. Impacts on Employment 

In addition to considering the direct 

employment impacts for the 

manufacturers of products covered by 

this rulemaking (discussed above), DOE 

also develops estimates of the indirect 

employment impacts of proposed 

standards in the economy in general. As 

noted previously, DOE expects energy 

conservation standards for the appliance 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking to reduce energy bills for 

consumers, with the resulting net 

savings being redirected to other forms 

of economic activity. DOE also realizes 

that these shifts in spending and 

economic activity could affect the 

demand for labor. To estimate these 

effects, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy using BLS 

data (described in section IV.H). (See 

the TSD accompanying this notice, 

chapter 15.) 

This input/output model suggests the 

proposed standards are likely to slightly 

increase the net demand for labor in the 

economy. Neither the BLS data nor the 

input/output model DOE uses includes 

the quality or wage level of the jobs. As 

Table V.52 shows, DOE estimates that 

net indirect employment impacts from 

the proposed standards are likely to be 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62107 

small. The net increase in jobs is so 

small that it would be imperceptible in 

national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. 

TABLE V.52—NET NATIONAL CHANGE IN INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT, JOBS IN 2042 

[Net National Change in Jobs (thousands)] 

Trial standard level 

Conventional cooking products Trial 

standard 

level 

Microwave 

oven EF 

Trial 

standard 

level 

Microwave 

oven standby 

Trial 

standard 

level 

Commercial 

clothes 

washers 

1 ............................................................. 0.25 1a 0.77 1b 2.19 1 0.07 

2 ............................................................. 0.81 2a 0.78 2b 3.14 2 0.51 

3 ............................................................. 0.90 3a 0.93 3b 4.30 3 0.63 

4 ............................................................. 0.99 4a 0.96 4b 6.51 4 0.68 

NA .......................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 5 0.76 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

For the reasons stated above in 

Section III.E.1.d., DOE believes that for 

purposes of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), none of the 

efficiency levels considered in this 

notice reduces the utility or 

performance of the appliance products 

under consideration in this rulemaking. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

In weighing the promulgation of any 

proposed standards, DOE is required to 

consider any lessening of competition 

that is likely to result from the adoption 

of those standards. The determination of 

the likely competitive impacts 

stemming from a proposed standard is 

made by the Attorney General, who 

transmits this determination, along with 

an analysis of the nature and extent of 

the impact, to the Secretary of Energy. 

(See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 

(B)(ii).) 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such a determination, DOE has 

provided DOJ with copies of this notice 

and the TSD for review. DOE will 

consider DOJ’s comments on the 

proposed rule in preparing the final 

rule. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of cooking products and 

CCWs addressed in this notice is likely 

to improve the security of the Nation’s 

energy system by reducing overall 

demand for energy, and, thus, reducing 

the Nation’s reliance on foreign sources 

of energy. Reduced demand also is 

likely to improve the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, DOE expects the 

proposed standards covered under this 

rulemaking to eliminate the need for the 

construction of new power plants with 

approximately 404 MW electricity 

generation capacity in 2042. 

Enhanced energy efficiency also 

produces environmental benefits. The 

expected energy savings from higher 

standards for the products covered by 

this rulemaking will reduce the 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production and household and building 

use of fossil fuels. Table V.53 shows 

cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg (mercury) 

emissions reductions for the products 

under consideration in this rulemaking 

over the analysis period. The expected 

energy savings from cooking product 

and CCW standards will reduce the 

emissions of greenhouse gases 

associated with energy production, and 

may reduce the cost of maintaining 

nationwide emissions standards and 

constraints. 

TABLE V.53—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (CUMULATIVE REDUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD FROM 2012 TO

2042) 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 NA 

Emissions Reductions for Conventional Cooking Products: 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................ 14.62 16.62 25.08 37.54 NA 

NOX (kt) ........................................................................ 6.32–12.06 6.39–13.71 10.11–20.55 14.99–30.65 NA 

Hg (t) ............................................................................. 0–0.20 0–0.26 0–0.37 0–0.56 NA 

1a 2a 3a 4a NA 

Emissions Reductions for Microwave Ovens Energy Factor: 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................ 11.49 16.95 27.54 38.51 NA 

NOX (kt) ........................................................................ 0.58–14.25 0.85–20.85 1.37–33.74 1.91–47.04 NA 

Hg (t) ............................................................................. 0–0.25 0–0.37 0–0.60 0–0.84 NA 

1b 2b 3b 4b NA 

Emissions Reductions for Microwave Ovens Standby 

Power: 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................ 23.15 35.19 50.48 82.12 NA 

NOX (kt) ........................................................................ 1.23–30.30 1.87–46.02 2.67–65.96 4.35–107.23 NA 

Hg (t) ............................................................................. 0–0.50 0–0.76 0–1.09 0–1.77 NA 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62108 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

94See http://www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule/. 

95Case No. 05–1244, 2008 WL 2698180 at *1 

(D.C. Cir. July 11, 2008). 

96 In the NOX SIP Call rule, EPA found that 

sources in the District of Columbia and 22 

‘‘upwind’’ States (States) were emitting NOX (an 

ozone precursor) at levels that significantly 

contributed to ‘‘downwind’’ States not attaining the 

ozone NAAQS or at levels that interfered with 

states in attainment maintaining the ozone NAAQS. 

In an effort to ensure that ‘‘downwind’’ states attain 

or continue to attain the ozone NAAQS, EPA 

established a region-wide cap for NOX emissions 

from certain large combustion sources and set a 

NOX emissions budget for each State. Unlike the 

cap that CAIR would have established, the NOX SIP 

Call Rule’s cap only constrains seasonal (summer 

time) emissions. In order to comply with the NOX

SIP Call Rule, States could elect to participate in the 

NOX Budget Trading Program. Under the NOX

Budget Trading Program, each emission source is 

required to have one allowance for each ton of NOX

emitted during the ozone season. States have 

flexibility in how they allocate allowances through 

their State Implementation Plans but States must 

remain within the EPA-established budget. 

Emission sources are allowed to buy, sell and bank 

NOX allowances as appropriate. It should be noted 

that, on April 16, 2008, EPA determined that 

Georgia is no longer subject to the NOX SIP Call 

rule. 73 FR 21528 (April 22, 2008). 

TABLE V.53—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (CUMULATIVE REDUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD FROM 2012 TO

2042)—Continued 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 NA 

1 2 3 4 5 

Emissions Reductions for Commercial Clothes Washers: 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................ 3.79 8.30 11.55 12.28 12.73 

NOX (kt) ........................................................................ 1.43–3.25 3.04–7.13 4.25–9.93 4.51–10.56 4.67–10.95

Hg (t) ............................................................................. 0–0.05 0–0.12 0–0.17 0–0.18 0–0.19 

Mt = million metric tons. 

kt = thousand metric tons. 

t = metric tons. 

The estimated cumulative CO2, NOX, 

and Hg emissions reductions for the 

proposed standards range up to a 

maximum of 38 Mt for CO2, 15 kt to 31 

kt for NOX, and 0 t to 0.6 t for Hg for 

conventional cooking products over the 

period from 2012 to 2042. For 

microwave oven EF, cumulative 

emission reductions range up to a 

maximum of 39 Mt for CO2, 2 kt to 47 

kt for NOX, and 0 t to 0.8 t for Hg, while 

for microwave oven standby, 

cumulative emission reductions range 

up to a maximum of 82 Mt for CO2, 4 

kt to 107 kt for NOX, and 0 t to 1.8 t for 

Hg. For CCWs, cumulative emission 

reductions range up to a maximum of 13 

Mt for CO2, 5 kt to 11 kt for NOX, and 

0 t to 0.2 t for Hg. However, DOE’s 

analyses show that TSL 4 for 

conventional cooking products, TSL 4a 

and TSL 4b for microwave ovens, and 

TSL 5 for CCWs provides the greatest 

reduction of emissions of all the TSLs 

considered. In the environmental 

assessment (chapter 16 of the TSD), 

DOE reports estimated annual changes 

in CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

attributable to each TSL. As discussed 

in section IV.J, DOE does not report SO2

emissions reduction from power plants 

because reductions from an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of SO2 emissions in the 

United States due to the emissions caps 

for SO2. 

The NEMS–BT modeling assumed 

that NOX would be subject to the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) issued by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

on March 10, 2005.94 70 FR 25162 (May 

12, 2005). On July 11, 2008, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued 

its decision in North Carolina v. 

Environmental Protection Agency,95 in 

which the court vacated the CAIR. If left 

in place, the CAIR would have 

permanently capped emissions of NOX

in 28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia. As with the SO2 emissions 

cap, a cap on NOX emissions would 

have meant that energy conservation 

standards are not likely to have a 

physical effect on NOX emissions in 

States covered by the CAIR caps. While 

the caps would have meant that 

physical emissions reductions in those 

States would not have resulted from the 

energy conservation standards that DOE 

is proposing today, the standards might 

have produced an environmentalrelated economic impact in the form of 

lower prices for emissions allowance 

credits, if large enough. DOE notes that 

the estimated total reduction in NOX

emissions, including projected 

emissions or corresponding allowance 

credits in States covered by the CAIR 

cap was insignificant and too small to 

affect allowance prices for NOX under 

the CAIR. 

Even though the D.C. Circuit vacated 

the CAIR, DOE notes that the D.C. 

Circuit left intact EPA’s 1998 NOX SIP 

Call rule, which capped seasonal 

(summer) NOX emissions from electric 

generating units and other sources in 23 

jurisdictions and gave those 

jurisdictions the option to participate in 

a cap and trade program for those 

emissions. 63 FR 57356, 57359 (Oct. 27, 

1998).96 DOE notes that the SIP Call rule 

may provide a similar, although smaller 

in extent, regional cap and may limit 

actual reduction in NOX emissions from 

revised standards occurring in States 

participating in the SIP Call rule. 

However, the possibility that the SIP 

Call rule may have the same effect as 

CAIR is highly uncertain. Therefore, 

DOE established a range of NOX

reductions due to the standards being 

considered in today’s proposed rule. 

DOE’s low estimate was based on the 

emission rate of the cleanest new 

natural gas combined-cycle power plant 

available for electricity generation based 

on the assumption that efficiency 

standards would result in only the 

cleanest available fossil-fueled 

generation being displaced. DOE used 

the emission rate, specified in kt of NOX

emitted per TWh of electricity 

generated, associated with an advanced 

natural gas combined-cycle power plant, 

as specified by NEMS–BT. The emission 

rate specified by NEMS–BT is 0.0341 

thousand short tons per TWh. To 

estimate the reduction in NOX

emissions, DOE multiplied this 

emission rate by the reduction in 

electricity generation due to the 

standards considered. DOE’s high 

estimate was based on the use of a 

nationwide NOX emission rate for all 

electrical generation. Use of such an 

emission rate assumes that future 

efficiency standards would result in 

displaced electrical generation mix that 

is equivalent to today’s mix of power 

plants (i.e., future power plants 

displaced are no cleaner than what are 

being used currently to generate 

electricity). In addition, under the high 

estimate assumption, standards would 

have little to no effect on the generation 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62109 

97 In anticipation of CAIR replacing the NOX SIP 

Call Rule, many States adopted sunset provisions 

for their plans implementing the NOX SIP Call Rule. 

The impact of the NOX SIP Call Rule on NOX

emissions will depend, in part, on whether these 

implementation plans are reinstated. 

98 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

99No. 05–1097, 2008 WL 341338, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 

Feb. 8, 2008). 

100 During the preparation of its most recent 

review of the state of climate science, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

identified various estimates of the present value of 

reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by one ton over 

the life that these emissions would remain in the 

atmosphere. The estimates reviewed by the IPCC 

spanned a range of values. In the absence of a 

consensus on any single estimate of the monetary 

value of CO2 emissions, DOE used the estimates 

identified by the study cited in Summary for 

Policymakers prepared by Working Group II of the 

IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report to estimate the 

potential monetary value of CO2 reductions likely 

to result from standards finalized in this 

rulemaking. According to IPCC, the mean social 

cost of carbon (SCC) reported in studies published 

in peer-reviewed journals was $43 per ton of 

carbon. This translates into about $12 per ton of 

carbon dioxide. The literature review (Tol 2005) 

from which this mean was derived did not report 

the year in which these dollars were denominated. 

However, we understand this estimate was 

denominated in 1995 dollars. Updating that 

estimate to 2007 dollars yields a SCC of $15 per ton 

of carbon dioxide. 

101 In contrast, most of the estimates of costs and 

benefits of increasing the efficiency of residential 

cooking products and commercial clothes washers 

include only economic values of impacts that 

would be experienced in the U.S. For example, in 

determining impacts on manufacturers, DOE 

generally does not consider impacts that occur 

solely outside of the United States. 

mix. Based on the AEO 2008 for a recent 

year (2006) in which no regulatory or 

non-regulatory measures were in effect 

to limit NOX emissions, DOE derived a 

high-end NOX emission rate of 0.842 

thousand short tons per TWh. To 

estimate the reduction in NOX

emissions, DOE multiplied this 

emission rate by the reduction in 

electricity generation due to the 

standards considered. DOE is 

considering whether changes are needed 

to its plan for addressing the issue of 

NOX reduction. DOE invites public 

comment on how the agency should 

address this issue, including how it 

might value NOX emissions for States 

now that the CAIR has been vacated.97

As noted above in section IV.J, with 

regard to mercury emissions, DOE is 

able to report an estimate of the physical 

quantity changes in mercury emissions 

associated with an energy conservation 

standard. As opposed to using the 

NEMS-BT model, DOE used a range of 

emission rates to estimate the mercury 

emissions that could be reduced from 

standards. DOE’s low estimate was 

based on the assumption that future 

standards would displace electrical 

generation from natural gas-fired power 

plants resulting in an effective emission 

rate of zero. The low-end emission rate 

is zero because virtually all mercury 

emitted from electricity generation is 

from coal-fired power plants. Based on 

an emission rate of zero, no emissions 

would be reduced from standards. 

DOE’s high estimate was based on the 

use of a nationwide mercury emission 

rate from the AEO 2008. Because power 

plant emission rates are a function of 

local regulation, scrubbers, and the 

mercury content of coal, it is extremely 

difficult to come up with a precise highend emission rate. Therefore, DOE 

believes the most reasonable estimate is 

based on the assumption that all 

displaced coal generation would have 

been emitting at the average emission 

rate for coal generation as specified by 

the AEO 2008. As noted previously, 

because virtually all mercury emitted 

from electricity generation is from coalfired power plants, DOE based the 

emission rate on the tons of mercury 

emitted per TWh of coal-generated 

electricity. Based on the emission rate 

for a recent year (2006), DOE derived a 

high-end emission rate of 0.0253 short 

tons per TWh. To estimate the reduction 

in mercury emissions, DOE multiplied 

the emission rate by the reduction in 

coal-generated electricity due to the 

standards considered. These changes in 

Hg emissions, as shown in Table V.53, 

are extremely small with a range of 

between 0.04 and 0.11 percent for 

conventional cooking products, 0.05 

and 0.34 percent for microwave ovens, 

and 0.01 and 0.04 percent for CCWs of 

national base case emissions (as 

determined by the AEO 2008) 

depending on TSL. 

The NEMS–BT model used for today’s 

proposed rule could not be used to 

estimate Hg emission reductions due to 

standards as it assumed that Hg 

emissions would be subject to EPA’s 

Clean Air Mercury Rule 98 (CAMR), 

which would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired plants in all States by 

2010. Similar to SO2 and NOX, DOE 

assumed that under such a system, 

energy conservation standards would 

result in no physical effect on these 

emissions, but might result in an 

environmental-related economic benefit 

in the form of a lower price for 

emissions allowance credits, if large 

enough. DOE estimated that the change 

in the Hg emissions from standards 

would not be large enough to influence 

allowance prices under CAMR. 

On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency,99 in 

which the Court, among other actions, 

vacated the CAMR referenced above. 

Accordingly, DOE is considering 

whether changes are needed to its plan 

for addressing the issue of mercury 

emissions in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision. DOE invites public comment 

on addressing mercury emissions in this 

rulemaking. 

In today’s proposed rule, DOE is 

taking into account a monetary benefit 

of CO2 emission reductions associated 

with this rulemaking. To put the 

potential monetary benefits from 

reduced CO2 emissions into a form that 

is likely to be most useful to 

decisionmakers and stakeholders, DOE 

used the same methods used to 

calculate the net present value of 

consumer cost savings: the estimated 

year-by-year reductions in CO2

emissions were converted into monetary 

values and these resulting annual values 

were then discounted over the life of the 

affected appliances to the present using 

both 3 percent and 7 percent discount 

rates. 

The estimates discussed below are 

based on an assumption of no benefit to 

an average benefit value reported by the 

IPCC.100 It is important to note that the 

IPCC estimate used as the upper bound 

value was derived from an estimate of 

the mean value of worldwide impacts 

from potential climate impacts caused 

by CO2 emissions, and not just the 

effects likely to occur within the United 

States. As DOE considers a monetary 

value for CO2 emission reductions, the 

value should be restricted to a 

representation of those costs/benefits 

likely to be experienced in the United 

States. As DOE expects that such values 

would be lower than comparable global 

values, however, there currently are no 

consensus estimates for the U.S. benefits 

likely to result from CO2 emission 

reductions. However, DOE believes it is 

appropriate to use U.S. benefit values, 

where available, and not world benefit 

values, in its analysis.101 Because U.S. 

specific estimates are not available, and 

DOE did not receive any additional 

information that would help serve to 

narrow the proposed range as a 

representative range for domestic U.S. 

benefits, DOE believes it is appropriate 

to propose the global mean value as an 

appropriate upper bound U.S. value for 

purposes of sensitivity analysis. 

As already discussed in section IV.J, 

DOE received comments on the ANOPR 

in the present rulemaking for estimating 

the value of CO2 emissions reductions. 

Both the Joint Comment and EJ argued 

for assigning an economic value to CO2

emissions. DOE’s approach for assigning 

a range to the dollars per ton of CO2

emissions recognizes and addresses the 

concerns of the Joint Comment and EJ. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62110 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

102Climate Change 2007—Impacts, Adaptation 

and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 17. Available at http://www.ipcc-wg2.org (last accessed 

Aug. 7, 2008). 

Given the uncertainty surrounding 

estimates of the societal cost of carbon 

(SCC), relying on any single study may 

be inadvisable since its estimate of the 

SCC will depend on many assumptions 

made by its authors. The Working 

Group II’s contribution to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the IPCC notes 

that: 

The large ranges of SCC are due in the large 

part to differences in assumptions regarding 

climate sensitivity, response lags, the 

treatment of risk and equity, economic and 

non-economic impacts, the inclusion of 

potentially catastrophic losses, and discount 

rates.102

Because of this uncertainty, DOE is 

relying on Tol (2005), which was 

presented in the IPCC’s Fourth 

Assessment Report, and was a 

comprehensive meta-analysis of 

estimates for the value of SCC. As a 

result, DOE is relying on the Tol study 

reported by the IPCC as the basis for its 

analysis. 

DOE continues to believe that the 

most appropriate monetary values for 

consideration in the development of 

efficiency standards are those drawn 

from studies that attempt to estimate the 

present value of the marginal economic 

benefits likely to result from reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, rather than 

estimates that are based on the market 

value of emission allowances under 

existing cap and trade programs or 

estimates that are based on the cost of 

reducing emissions—both of which are 

largely determined by policy decisions 

that set the timing and extent of 

emission reductions and do not 

necessarily reflect the benefit of 

reductions. DOE also believes that the 

studies it relies upon generally should 

be studies that were the subject of a peer 

review process and were published in 

reputable journals. 

In today’s NOPR, DOE is essentially 

proposing to rely on a range of values 

based on the values presented in Tol 

(2005). Additionally, DOE has applied 

an annual growth rate of 2.4% to the 

value of SCC, as suggested by the IPCC 

Working Group II (2007, p. 822), based 

on estimated increases in damages from 

future emissions reported in published 

studies. Because the values in Tol 

(2005) were presented in 1995 dollars, 

DOE is assigning a range for the SCC of 

$0 to $20 ($2007) per ton of CO2

emissions. 

DOE is proposing to use the median 

estimated social cost of CO2 as an upper 

bound of the range. This value is based 

on Tol (2005), which reviewed 103 

estimates of the SCC from 28 published 

studies, and concluded that when only 

peer-reviewed studies published in 

recognized journals are considered, 

‘‘that climate change impacts may be 

very uncertain but [it] is unlikely that 

the marginal damage costs of carbon 

dioxide emissions exceed $50 per ton 

carbon [comparable to a 2007 value of 

$20 per ton carbon dioxide when 

expressed in 2007 U.S. dollars with a 

2.4% growth rate].’’ 

In proposing a lower bound of $0 for 

the estimated range, DOE agrees with 

the IPCC Working Group II (2007) report 

that ‘‘significant warming across the 

globe and the locations of significant 

observed changes in many systems 

consistent with warming is very 

unlikely to be due solely to natural 

variability of temperatures or natural 

variability of the systems’’ (pp. 9), and, 

thus, tentatively concludes that a global 

value of zero for reducing emissions 

cannot be justified. However, DOE also 

believes that it is reasonable to allow for 

the possibility that the U.S. portion of 

the global cost of carbon dioxide 

emissions may be quite low. In fact, 

some of the studies looked at in Tol 

(2005) reported negative values for the 

SCC. DOE is using U.S. benefit values, 

and not world benefit values, in its 

analysis, and, further, DOE believes that 

U.S. domestic values will be lower than 

the global values. Additionally, the 

statutory criteria in EPCA do not require 

consideration of global effects. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to use a 

lower bound of $0 per ton of CO2

emissions in estimating the potential 

benefits of today’s proposed rule. 

The resulting estimates of the 

potential range of net present value 

benefits associated with the reduction of 

CO2 emissions are reflected in Table 

V.54. 

TABLE V.54—ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS FROM CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS AT 7% 

DISCOUNT RATE AND 3% DISCOUNT RATE

Conventional cooking product TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 (Mt) 

emission 

reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ............................................................. 14.62 $0 to $114 ............................................. $0 to $256. 

2 ............................................................. 16.62 $0 to $129 ............................................. $0 to $290. 

3 ............................................................. 25.08 $0 to $192 ............................................. $0 to $438. 

4 ............................................................. 37.54 $0 to $286 ............................................. $0 to $654. 

Microwave oven energy factor TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 (Mt) 

emission 

reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of Estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1a ........................................................... 11.49 $0 to $90 ............................................... $0 to $201. 

2a ........................................................... 16.95 $0 to $131 ............................................. $0 to $296. 

3a ........................................................... 27.54 $0 to $212 ............................................. $0 to $481. 

4a ........................................................... 38.51 $0 to $295 ............................................. $0 to $672. 

Microwave oven energy factor TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 (Mt) 

emission 

reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1b ........................................................... 23.51 $0 to $186 ............................................. $0 to $406. 

2b ........................................................... 35.19 $0 to $281 ............................................. $0 to $617. 

3b ........................................................... 50.48 $0 to $403 ............................................. $0 to $885. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62111 

103Office of Management and Budget Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘2006 Report to 

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities,’’ (2006). 

104Trasande, L., et al., Applying Cost Analyses to 

Drive Policy that Protects Children, 1076 ANN. N.Y. 

ACAD. SCI. 911 (2006). 

105Ted Gayer and Robert Hahn, Designing 

Environmental Policy: Lessons from the Regulation 

of Mercury Emissions, Regulatory Analysis 05–01 

(AEI-Brookings Joint Center For Regulatory Studies) 

p. 31 (2004). A version of this paper was published 

in the Journal of Regulatory Economics in 2006. The 

estimate was derived by back-calculating the annual 

benefits per ton from the net present value of 

benefits reported in the study. 

Microwave oven energy factor TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 (Mt) 

emission 

reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

4b ........................................................... 82.12 $0 to $654 ............................................. $0 to $1,440. 

Commercial clothes washer TSL 

Estimated cumulative CO2 (Mt) 

emission 

reductions 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

7% discount rate 

Value of estimated CO2 emission 

reductions (million 2007$) at 

3% discount rate 

1 ............................................................. 3.79 $0 to $29 ............................................... $0 to $64. 

2 ............................................................. 8.30 $0 to $64 ............................................... $0 to $141. 

3 ............................................................. 11.55 $0 to $89 ............................................... $0 to $196. 

4 ............................................................. 12.28 $0 to $94 ............................................... $0 to $209. 

5 ............................................................. 12.73 $0 to $98 ............................................... $0 to $217. 

DOE also investigated the potential 

monetary impact resulting from the 

impact of today’s efficiency standards 

on SO2, NOX, and Hg emissions. As 

previously stated, DOE’s initial analysis 

assumed the presence of nationwide 

emission caps on SO2 and Hg, and caps 

on NOX emissions in the 28 States 

covered by the CAIR caps. In the 

presence of emission caps, DOE 

concluded that no physical reductions 

in power sector emissions would likely 

occur; however, the lower generation 

requirements associated with standards 

could potentially put downward 

pressure on the prices of emissions 

allowances in cap-and-trade markets. 

Estimating this effect is very difficult 

because of factors such as credit 

banking, which can change the 

trajectory of prices. DOE has further 

concluded that the effect from standards 

on SO2 allowance prices is likely to be 

negligible, based upon runs of the 

NEMS–BT model. See chapter 16 

(Environmental Assessment) of the TSD 

accompanying this notice for further 

details regarding SO2 allowance price 

impacts. 

As discussed earlier, with respect to 

NOX the CAIR rule has been vacated by 

the courts, so projected annual NOX

allowances from NEMS–BT are no 

longer relevant. In DOE’s subsequent 

analysis, NOX emissions are not 

controlled by a nationwide regulatory 

system. For the range of NOX reduction 

estimates and Hg reduction estimates, 

DOE estimated the national monetized 

benefits of emissions reductions from 

today’s proposed rule based on 

environmental damage estimates from 

the literature. Available estimates 

suggest a very wide range of monetary 

values for NOX emissions, ranging from 

$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX

from stationary sources, measured in 

2001$ 103 or a range of $421 per ton to 

$4,326 per ton in 2006$. As discussed 

above, with the D.C. Circuit vacating the 

CAIR, DOE is considering how it should 

address the issue of NOX reduction and 

corresponding monetary valuation. DOE 

invites public comment on how the 

agency should address this issue, 

including how to value NOX emissions 

for States in the absence of the CAIR. 

DOE has already conducted research 

for today’s proposed rule and 

determined that the basic science 

linking mercury emissions from power 

plants to impacts on humans is 

considered highly uncertain. However, 

DOE identified two estimates of the 

environmental damages of mercury 

based on two estimates of the adverse 

impact of childhood exposure to methyl 

mercury on IQ for American children, 

and subsequent loss of lifetime 

economic productivity resulting from 

these IQ losses. The high-end estimate 

is based on an estimate of the current 

aggregate cost of the loss of IQ in 

American children that results from 

exposure to mercury of U.S. power plant 

origin ($1.3 billion per year in 2000$), 

which translates to $31.7 million per 

ton emitted per year (2006$).104 The 

low-end estimate was $664,000 per ton 

emitted in 2004$ or $709,000 per ton in 

2006$, which DOE derived from a 

published evaluation of mercury control 

using different methods and 

assumptions from the first study, but 

also based on the present value of the 

lifetime earnings of children exposed.105

DOE invites public comment on how 

the agency should address this issue, 

including how to value mercury 

emissions in the absence of the CAMR. 

The resulting estimates of the potential 

range of the present value benefits 

associated with the national reduction 

of NOX and national reductions in Hg 

emissions are reflected in Table V.55 

and Table V.56. 

TABLE V.55—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF MONETARY SAVINGS FROM REDUCTIONS OF Hg AND NOX BY TRIAL STANDARD

LEVEL AT A 7% DISCOUNT RATE

Conventional cooking 

product TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1 ......................................... 6.32 to 12.06 ..................... 0.7 to 13.9 ......................... 0 to 0.20 ............................ 0 to 1.8. 

2 ......................................... 6.39 to 13.71 ..................... 0.7 to 15.7 ......................... 0 to 0.26 ............................ 0 to 2.2. 

3 ......................................... 10.11 to 20.55 ................... 1.0 to 23.0 ......................... 0 to 0.37 ............................ 0 to 3.1. 

4 ......................................... 14.99 to 30.65 ................... 1.5 to 33.7 ......................... 0 to 0.56 ............................ 0 to 4.6. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62112 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Microwave oven energy 

factor TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1a ....................................... 0.58 to 14.25 ..................... 0.1 to 17.6 ......................... 0 to 0.25 ............................ 0 to 2.0. 

2a ....................................... 0.85 to 20.85 ..................... 0.1 to 25.3 ......................... 0 to 0.37 ............................ 0 to 2.9. 

3a ....................................... 1.37 to 33.74 ..................... 0.2 to 40.4 ......................... 0 to 0.60 ............................ 0 to 4.6. 

4a ....................................... 1.91 to 47.04 ..................... 0.2 to 55.9 ......................... 0 to 0.84 ............................ 0 to 6.4. 

Microwave oven standby 

power TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1b ....................................... 1.23 to 30.30 ..................... 0.2 to 38.9 ......................... 0 to 0.50 ............................ 0 to 4.0. 

2b ....................................... 1.87 to 46.02 ..................... 0.2 to 58.9 ......................... 0 to 0.76 ............................ 0 to 6.1. 

3b ....................................... 2.67 to 65.96 ..................... 0.3 to 84.2 ......................... 0 to 1.09 ............................ 0 to 8.7. 

4b ....................................... 4.35 to 107.23 ................... 0.5 to 136.4 ....................... 0 to 1.77 ............................ 0 to 14.2. 

Commercial clothes 

washer TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1 ......................................... 1.43 to 3.25 ....................... 0.2 to 3.7 ........................... 0 to 0.06 ............................ 0 to 0.4. 

2 ......................................... 3.04 to 7.13 ....................... 0.3 to 8.0 ........................... 0 to 0.13 ............................ 0 to 0.9. 

3 ......................................... 4.25 to 9.93 ....................... 0.5 to 11.2 ......................... 0 to 0.19 ............................ 0 to 1.3. 

4 ......................................... 4.51 to 10.56 ..................... 0.5 to 11.9 ......................... 0 to 0.20 ............................ 0 to 1.4. 

5 ......................................... 4.67 to 10.95 ..................... 0.5 to 12.3 ......................... 0 to 0.21 ............................ 0 to 1.4. 

TABLE V.56—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF MONETARY SAVINGS FROM REDUCTIONS OF Hg AND NOX BY TRIAL STANDARD

LEVEL AT A 3% DISCOUNT RATE

Conventional cooking 

product TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1 ......................................... 6.32 to 12.06 ..................... 1.4 to 28.2 ......................... 0 to 0.20 ............................ 0 to 3.5. 

2 ......................................... 6.39 to 13.71 ..................... 1.4 to 32.0 ......................... 0 to 0.26 ............................ 0 to 4.5. 

3 ......................................... 10.11 to 20.55 ................... 2.2 to 47.4 ......................... 0 to 0.37 ............................ 0 to 6.4. 

4 ......................................... 14.99 to 30.65 ................... 3.3 to 70.3 ......................... 0 to 0.56 ............................ 0 to 9.5. 

Microwave oven energy 

factor TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1a ....................................... 0.58 to 14.25 ..................... 0.1 to 34.3 ......................... 0 to 0.25 ............................ 0 to 4.2. 

2a ....................................... 0.85 to 20.85 ..................... 0.2 to 49.7 ......................... 0 to 0.37 ............................ 0 to 6.1. 

3a ....................................... 1.37 to 33.74 ..................... 0.3 to 80.1 ......................... 0 to 0.60 ............................ 0 to 9.9. 

4a ....................................... 1.91 to 47.04 ..................... 0.4 to 111.2 ....................... 0 to 0.84 ............................ 0 to 13.8. 

Microwave oven standby 

power TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1b ....................................... 1.23 to 30.30 ..................... 0.3 to 74.1 ......................... 0 to 0.50 ............................ 0 to 8.4. 

2b ....................................... 1.87 to 46.02 ..................... 0.4 to 112.4 ....................... 0 to 0.76 ............................ 0 to 12.8. 

3b ....................................... 2.67 to 65.96 ..................... 0.6 to 160.9 ....................... 0 to 1.09 ............................ 0 to 18.3. 

4b ....................................... 4.35 to 107.23 ................... 1.0 to 261.2 ....................... 0 to 1.77 ............................ 0 to 29.8. 

Commercial clothes 

washer TSL 

Estimated cumulative NOX

(kt) emission reductions 

Value of estimated NOX

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

Estimated cumulative Hg 

(t) emission reductions 

Value of estimated Hg 

emission reductions 

(million 2006$) 

1 ......................................... 1.43 to 3.25 ....................... 0.3 to 7.5 ........................... 0 to 0.06 ............................ 0 to 0.9. 

2 ......................................... 3.04 to 7.13 ....................... 0.7 to 16.6 ......................... 0 to 0.13 ............................ 0 to 2.0. 

3 ......................................... 4.25 to 9.93 ....................... 1.0 to 23.0 ......................... 0 to 0.19 ............................ 0 to 2.8. 

4 ......................................... 4.51 to 10.56 ..................... 1.0 to 24.5 ......................... 0 to 0.20 ............................ 0 to 3.0. 

5 ......................................... 4.67 to 10.95 ..................... 1.0 to 25.4 ......................... 0 to 0.21 ............................ 0 to 3.1. 

Table V.57 presents the estimated 

wastewater discharge reductions due to 

the TSLs for CCWs. In chapter 16 of the 

TSD accompanying this notice, DOE 

reports annual changes in wastewater 

discharge attributable to each TSL. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62113 

106Refer to: http://www.kemco.or.kr/eng/. 

107Refer to: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/ 

standby.html. 

108Refer to: http://www.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/ 

index.html. 

109 IEA Energy Information Centre, Standby 

Power Use and the IEA ‘‘1-Watt Plan’’. Available at: 

http://www.iea.org/textbase/subjectqueries/ 

standby.asp. 

TABLE V.57—SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REDUCTIONS (CUMULATIVE REDUCTIONS FOR PRODUCTS SOLD

FROM 2012 TO 2042) 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 5 

Wastewater Discharge Reductions for Commercial Clothes Washers: 

Wastewater (trillion gallons) ..................................................................... 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.23 

C. Proposed Standards 

1. Overview 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 

6316(a), EPCA requires that any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In determining 

whether a standard is economically 

justified, the Secretary must determine 

whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the following 

seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products or equipment 

subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products or equipment in 

the type (or class) compared to any 

increase in the price, initial charges, or 

maintenance expenses for the covered 

products that are likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or, as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products or 

equipment likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) 

The new or amended standard also 

must ‘‘result in significant conservation 

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

6316(a)) 

In selecting the proposed energy 

conservation standards for cooking 

products and CCWs for consideration in 

today’s NOPR, DOE started by 

examining the maximum 

technologically feasible levels, and 

determined whether those levels were 

economically justified. If DOE 

determined that the maximum 

technologically feasible level was not 

justified, DOE then analyzed the next 

lower TSL to determine whether that 

level was economically justified. DOE 

repeated this procedure until it 

identified an economically justified 

TSL. 

To aid the reader in understanding 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

the following tables summarize the 

quantitative analytical results for each 

TSL, based on the assumptions and 

methodology discussed above. These 

tables present the results—or, in some 

cases, a range of results—for each TSL. 

The range of values reported in these 

tables for industry impacts represents 

the results for the different markup 

scenarios that DOE used to estimate 

manufacturer impacts. 

In addition to the quantitative results, 

DOE also considers other burdens and 

benefits that affect economic 

justification. In the case of conventional 

cooking products, DOE considered the 

burden that would be imposed on the 

industry to comply with performance 

standards. Currently, conventional 

cooking products are not rated for 

efficiency because DOE has 

promulgated only prescriptive standards 

for gas cooking products. Therefore, any 

proposed performance standards would 

require the industry to test, rate, and 

label these cooking products, a 

significant burden that the industry 

currently does not bear. DOE has also 

considered harmonization of standby 

power standards for microwave ovens 

with international standby power 

programs such as Korea’s e-standby 

program,106 Australia’s standby 

program,107 and Japan’s Top Runner 

Program.108 These programs seek to 

establish standby power efficiency 

ratings through the International Energy 

Agency (IEA)’s One-Watt program, 

which seeks to lower standby power 

below 1 W for microwave ovens.109

Both Korea and Australia will be 

publishing mandatory standby power 

standards of 1 W by 2010 and 2012, 

respectively. In accordance with Japan’s 

Top Runner Program, Japanese 

appliance manufacturers made a 

voluntary declaration to reduce standby 

power of microwave ovens without a 

timer as close to zero as possible and 

that of microwave ovens with a timer to 

1 W or lower. 

In sum, the proposed standard levels 

for the products/equipment that are the 

subject of this rulemaking reflect DOE’s 

careful balancing of the relevant 

statutory factors under EPCA. After 

considering public comments on this 

NOPR, DOE will publish a final rule 

that either adopt the proposed TSL, one 

of the higher or lower TSLs, or some 

value in between. 

2. Conclusion 

a. Conventional Cooking Products 

Table V.58 presents a summary of the 

quantitative results for each 

conventional cooking product TSL. 

These results indicate the energy 

savings and economic impacts due to 

increasing the efficiency of conventional 

cooking products. 

TABLE V.58—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

Primary Energy Saved (quads) ....................................................... 0.14 0.23 0.32 0.50 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62114 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.58—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................ 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................ 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.26 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ......................................... 0.056 0.074 0.109 0.167 

NPV (2006$ billion): 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................... 0.215 0.393 0.381 (12.548) 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................... 0.609 1.186 1.374 (23.141) 

Industry Impacts: 

Gas Cooktops 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................ (5)–(12) (5)–(12) (5)–(12) 28–(141) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................. (2)–(4) (2)–(4) (2)–(4) 10–(49) 

Electric Cooktops 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................ 0 (2)–(11) (2)–(11) 77–(383) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................. 0 (1)–(3) (1)–(3) 22–(107) 

Gas Ovens 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................ (7)–(10) (7)–(10) (6)–(41) (47)–(181) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................. (2) (2) (1)–(9) (10)–(39) 

Electric Ovens 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ............................................ 0 (8)–(19) (8)–(19) (10)–(469) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................. 0 (1)–(2) (1)–(2) (1)–(59) 

Cumulative Emissions Impacts †: 

CO2 (Mt) ................................................................................... 14.62 16.62 25.08 37.54 

NOX (kt) .................................................................................... 6.32–12.06 6.39–13.71 10.11–20.55 14.99–30.65 

Hg (t) ......................................................................................... 0–0.20 0–0.26 0–0.37 0–0.56 

Mean LCC Savings * (2006$): 

Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners ......................................... 13 13 13 (11) 

Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements ............................ 4 4 4 

Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements .......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ (283) 

Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ..... 6 6 6 (86) 

Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven ...................................................... ............................ ............................ 1 (6) 

Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ............................ 9 9 (52) 

Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven ................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ (143) 

Median PBP (years): 

Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners ......................................... 4.5 4.5 4.5 77.1 

Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements ............................ 7.3 7.3 7.3 

Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements .......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 1512 

Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ..... 9.4 9.4 9.4 26.9 

Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven ...................................................... ............................ ............................ 11.4 16.4 

Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ............................ 8.0 8.0 60.6 

Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven ................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 240 

LCC Results: 

Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.2 93.9 

No Impact (%) ................................................................... 93.5 93.5 93.5 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................. 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.1 

Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................... ............................ 29.4 29.4 29.4 

No Impact (%) ................................................................... ............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................. ............................ 70.6 70.6 70.6 

Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements 

Net Cost (%) ............................ ............................ ............................ 100.0 

No Impact (%) ................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 0.0 

Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................... 6.5 6.5 6.5 95.0 

No Impact (%) ................................................................... 82.3 82.3 82.3 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................. 11.2 11.2 11.2 5.0 

Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................... ............................ ............................ 58.9 68.8 

No Impact (%) ................................................................... ............................ ............................ 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................. ............................ ............................ 41.1 31.2 

Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................... ............................ 43.9 43.9 95.2 

No Impact (%) ................................................................... ............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................. ............................ 56.1 56.1 4.8 

Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven 

Net Cost (%) ...................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 78.9 

No Impact (%) ................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) .................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ 21.1 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008 Reference Case. 

† CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at households. NOX emissions impacts include physical reductions at 

power plants as well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62115 

First, DOE considered TSL 4, the maxtech level. TSL 4 would likely save 0.50 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.12 quads. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects that TSL 4 would 

result in a net decrease of $12.5 billion 

in NPV, using a discount rate of seven 

percent. The emissions reductions at 

TSL 4 are 37.54 Mt of CO2, 14.99 kt to 

30.65 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 0.56 t of Hg. 

Total generating capacity in 2042 is 

estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 0.167 gigawatts (GW) 

under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the 

average conventional cooking product 

consumer will experience an increase in 

LCC, with the exception of consumers of 

electric coil cooktops. In the case of 

electric coil cooktops, the average 

consumer will save only $4 in LCC due 

to TSL 4. With the exception of electric 

coil cooktop consumers, DOE estimated 

LCC increases for at least 68 percent of 

consumers in the Nation that purchase 

conventional cooking products. The 

median payback period of each product 

class at TSL 4, with the exception of 

electric coil cooktops and gas selfcleaning ovens, is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the equipment. 

Although TSL 4 for electric coil 

cooktops yields LCC savings and 

provides relatively short paybacks for 

average consumers, DOE estimates that 

the technology needed to attain the 

efficiency level (improved contact 

conductance) may not provide energy 

savings under field conditions, for the 

reasons below. (See section IV.B for 

more details.) Measured efficiency gains 

from improved contact conductance 

have been obtained under test 

procedure conditions using the 

aluminum test block. To ensure 

consistent and repeatable testing, an 

aluminum test block is used to establish 

cooktop efficiency by measuring the 

increased heat content of the block 

during a test measurement. Because the 

test block is much flatter than actual 

cooking vessels, thereby allowing for a 

higher degree of thermal contact 

between the block and coil element, 

DOE believes that the efficiency gains 

with an actual cooking vessel likely will 

not be as large or may not even be 

achievable. Therefore, DOE has 

significant doubt that electric cooktop 

consumers may actually realize 

economic savings with products at TSL 

4. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV at TSL 4 for each of the 

following four general categories of 

conventional cooking products: gas 

cooktops, electric cooktops, gas ovens, 

and electric ovens. The projected 

change in INPV ranges from an increase 

of $28 million to a decrease of $141 

million for gas cooktops, an increase of 

$77 million to a decrease of $383 

million for electric cooktops, a decrease 

of $47 million to a decrease of $181 

million for gas ovens, and a decrease of 

$10 million to a decrease of $469 

million for electric ovens. At TSL 4, 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could 

result in a net loss of 49 percent in INPV 

to gas cooktop manufacturers, a net loss 

of 107 percent in INPV to electric 

cooktop manufacturers, a net loss of 39 

percent to gas oven manufacturers, and 

a net loss of 59 percent to electric oven 

manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 4, the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the potential multimillion dollar negative net economic 

cost to the Nation, the economic burden 

on consumers, and the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 3, which 

yielded primary energy savings 

estimated at 0.32 quads of energy 

through 2042, an amount which DOE 

considers to be significant. Discounted 

at seven percent, the energy savings 

through 2042 would be 0.08 quads. For 

the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that 

TSL 3 would result in a net increase of 

$381 million in NPV, using a discount 

rate of seven percent. The emissions 

reductions are projected to be 25.08 Mt 

of CO2, 10.11 kt to 20.55 kt of NOX, and 

0 t to 0.37 t of Hg. Total generating 

capacity in 2042 under TSL 3 is 

estimated to decrease by 0.109 GW. 

At TSL 3, DOE projects that the 

impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on average 

consumers of conventional cooking 

products will decrease their LCC. For 

electric smooth cooktops and electric 

self-cleaning ovens, TSL 3 does not 

increase the efficiency beyond baseline 

levels because none of the candidate 

standard levels for these products 

provide economic savings to consumers. 

At TSL 3, average gas and electric coil 

cooktop consumers will save $13 and $4 

in LCC, respectively. Average 

consumers of gas standard ovens, gas 

self-cleaning ovens, and electric 

standard ovens will realize LCC savings 

of $6, $1, and $9, respectively. The 

median payback period of each product 

class impacted by TSL 3 is projected to 

be at least 40 percent shorter than the 

mean lifetime of the products, 19 years. 

For example, at TSL 3 the projected 

payback period is 4.5 years for average 

consumers of gas cooktops, whereas the 

projected payback period is 11.4 years 

for average consumers of gas selfcleaning ovens. 

Although TSL 3 provides LCC savings 

to the average consumer, DOE estimates 

a significant percentage of consumers of 

gas self-cleaning ovens and electric 

standard ovens will be burdened by the 

standard (i.e., experience increases in 

their LCC). DOE estimates that 59 

percent of consumers of gas selfcleaning ovens and 44 percent of 

consumers of electric standard ovens 

will be burdened by TSL 3. In the case 

of electric standard ovens, although a 

majority of consumers still benefit from 

the standard, almost 50 percent of 

consumers would be burdened. By 

comparison, a majority of non-impacted 

gas cooktop and non-impacted gas 

standard oven consumers would realize 

LCC savings due to TSL 3. Specifically, 

in the case of gas cooktops, 93.5 percent 

of consumers are not impacted by TSL 

3 (i.e., 93.5 percent of consumers 

already purchase cooktops at TSL 3). Of 

the remaining 6.5 percent of gas cooktop 

consumers who are impacted by TSL 3, 

over 96 percent realize LCC savings. For 

gas standard ovens, 82.3 percent 

consumers are not impacted by TSL 3. 

Of the remaining 17.7 percent of gas 

standard oven consumers who are 

impacted by TSL 3, over 63 percent 

realize LCC savings. In the case of 

electric coil cooktops, although DOE 

estimates that over 70 percent of 

consumers would decrease their LCC, 

the efficiency gain achieved at TSL 3 

would be achieved through the same 

technological change as TSL 4 

(improved contact conductance). As 

noted for TSL 4, DOE has significant 

doubt that electric cooktop consumers 

will actually realize economic savings at 

TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV for each of the four general 

categories of conventional cooking 

products range from a decrease of $5 

million to a decrease of $12 million for 

gas cooktops, a decrease of $2 million to 

a decrease of $11 million for electric 

cooktops, a decrease of $6 million to a 

decrease of $41 million for gas ovens, 

and a decrease of $8 million to a 

decrease of $19 million for electric 

ovens. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62116 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 3 could result in maximum net 

losses of up to 4 percent in INPV for gas 

cooktop manufacturers, three percent 

for electric cooktop manufacturers, nine 

percent for gas oven manufacturers, and 

two percent for electric oven 

manufacturers. 

Although DOE recognizes the 

increased economic benefits to the 

Nation that could result from TSL 3, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of a Federal standard at TSL 3 

would still be outweighed by the 

economic burden on conventional 

cooking product consumers. For 

example, DOE believes the economic 

savings realized by average consumers 

are outweighed by the significant 

percentage of gas self-cleaning oven and 

electric standard oven consumers who 

are burdened by the standard. 

Considering that TSL 3 also adversely 

impacts manufacturers’ INPV, DOE 

believes the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions impacts are not 

significant enough to outweigh the 

burdens of the standard. 

DOE considered TSL 2 next. DOE 

projects that TSL 2 would save 0.23 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.06 quads. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects TSL 2 to result 

in net savings in NPV of $393 million. 

The estimated emissions reductions are 

16.62 Mt of CO2, 6.39 kt to 13.71 kt of 

NOX, and 0 t to 0.26 t of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 

2 would likely decrease by 0.074 GW. 

The candidate standard levels for 

each of the product classes that 

comprise TSL 2 are the same as TSL 3 

except for gas self-cleaning ovens. DOE 

did not increase the efficiency for gas 

self-cleaning ovens beyond the baseline 

level for TSL 2 because, as described for 

TSL 3, efficiency levels greater than the 

baseline level do not yield LCC savings 

to a majority of gas self-cleaning 

consumers. For all other product 

classes, the impacts to consumers at 

TSL 3 are identical to TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV for each of the four general 

categories of conventional cooking 

products range from a decrease of $5 

million to a decrease of $12 million for 

gas cooktops, a decrease of $2 million to 

a decrease of $11 million for electric 

cooktops, a decrease of $7 million to a 

decrease of $10 million for gas ovens, 

and a decrease of $8 million to a 

decrease of $19 million for electric 

ovens. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 4 

percent in INPV to gas cooktop 

manufacturers, a net loss of three 

percent in INPV to electric cooktop 

manufacturers, a net loss of two percent 

to gas oven manufacturers, and a net 

loss of two percent to electric oven 

manufacturers. 

Although DOE recognizes the 

increased economic benefits to the 

Nation that could result from TSL 2, 

DOE concludes that the benefits of a 

Federal standard at TSL 2 would still be 

outweighed by the economic burden 

that would be placed upon conventional 

cooking product consumers. Under TSL 

2, DOE would no longer impose a 

standard for gas self-cleaning ovens, 

thereby reducing the economic burden 

to the Nation. The decreased economic 

burden under TSL 2 is evident from the 

change in NPV as net savings to the 

Nation increases to $393 million from 

the $381 million realized under TSL 3. 

Even so, DOE believes the economic 

savings realized by average consumers 

are outweighed by the significant 

percentage of electric standard oven 

consumers who are still burdened by 

the standard. A TSL 2 standard would 

also adversely impact manufacturer 

INPV. Consequently, DOE believes the 

benefits of energy savings and emissions 

impacts of TSL 2 are not significant 

enough to outweigh the burdens that 

would be created by the standard. 

DOE considered TSL 1 next. DOE 

projects that TSL 1 would save 0.14 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.04 quads. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects TSL 1 to result 

in net savings in NPV of $215 million. 

The estimated emissions reductions are 

14.62 Mt of CO2, 6.32 kt to 12.06 kt of 

NOX, and 0 t to 0.20 t of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 

1 would likely decrease by 0.056 GW. 

At TSL 1, only amended energy 

conservation standards consisting of 

prescriptive requirements to eliminate 

standing pilots for gas cooktops and gas 

standard ovens would be promulgated 

by DOE. DOE projects the impacts of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on average consumers of gas cooktops 

and gas standard ovens will decrease 

their LCC. At TSL 1, average gas 

cooktop and gas standard oven 

consumers will save $13 and $6 in LCC, 

respectively. DOE estimates that 93.5 

percent of gas cooktops consumers and 

82.3 percent of gas standard oven 

consumers already purchase products at 

TSL 1. Of the non-impacted consumers 

(i.e., consumers already purchasing 

products at TSL 1), DOE estimates that 

over 96 percent of gas cooktop 

consumers and over 63 percent of gas 

standard oven consumers realize LCC 

savings due to the elimination of 

standing pilots. The median payback 

period is projected to be 4.5 years for 

the average gas cooktop consumer and 

9.4 years for the average gas standard 

oven consumer. 

DOE recognizes that there are 

subgroups in the Nation that use gas 

cooking products but are without 

household electricity. Under TSL 1, 

these subgroups (approximately 0.01 

percent of the total U.S. household 

population) are likely to be impacted 

because they would be required to use 

an electrical source for cooking products 

to operate the ignition system. However, 

DOE market research shows that batterypowered electronic ignition systems 

have been implemented in other 

products, such as instantaneous gas 

water heaters, barbeques, furnaces, and 

other appliances, and the use of such 

products is not expressly prohibited by 

applicable safety standards. Therefore, 

DOE believes that households that use 

gas for cooking and are without 

electricity will likely have technological 

options that would enable them to 

continue to use gas cooking if standing 

pilot ignition systems are eliminated. 

At TSL 1, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $5 

million to a decrease of $12 million for 

gas cooktops and a decrease of $7 

million to a decrease of $10 million for 

gas ovens. At TSL 1, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 1 could result in a net loss of 4 

percent in INPV to gas cooktop 

manufacturers and a net loss of two 

percent to gas oven manufacturers. 

Although DOE estimates that TSL 1 will 

lead to some net loss in INPV to gas 

cooktop and gas oven manufacturers, 

because TSL 1 is comprised of 

prescriptive requirements, the industry 

would not be burdened with the 

additional costs associated with 

complying with performance 

requirements. Currently, only 

prescriptive standards for conventional 

cooking products are in effect requiring 

that gas cooking products with an 

electrical supply cord not be equipped 

with a constant burning pilot. As a 

result, conventional cooking product 

manufacturers are not burdened with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62117 

the costs of testing the rated 

performance of their products to label 

and comply with performance-based 

energy conservation standards. Because 

TSL 1 effectively extends the existing 

prescriptive requirement to all gas 

cooking products, regardless of whether 

the products have an electrical supply 

cord, DOE avoids burdening 

manufacturers with testing, labeling, 

and compliance costs that they 

currently do not bear. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of a TSL 1 standard outweigh 

the burdens. In particular, the Secretary 

has tentatively concluded that TSL 1 

saves a significant amount of energy and 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Therefore, DOE 

today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking products at TSL 1. Table V.59 

demonstrates the proposed energy 

conservation standards for all product 

classes of conventional cooking 

products. 

TABLE V.59—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS

Product class Proposed energy conservation 

standards 

Gas Cooktop/Conventional Burners .................................................................................................................. No Constant Burning Pilot Lights. 

Electric Cooktop/Low or High Wattage Open (Coil) Elements .......................................................................... No Standard. 

Electric Cooktop/Smooth Elements ................................................................................................................... No Standard. 

Gas Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line ............................................................................... No Constant Burning Pilot Lights. 

Gas Oven/Self-Clean Oven ............................................................................................................................... No Change to Existing Standard. 

Electric Oven/Standard Oven with or without a Catalytic Line .......................................................................... No Standard. 

Electric Oven/Self-Clean Oven .......................................................................................................................... No Standard. 

b. Microwave Ovens 

Table V.60 presents a summary of the 

quantitative results for the four 

microwave oven TSLs pertaining to the 

EF. 

TABLE V.60—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN ENERGY FACTOR

Category TSL 1a TSL 2a TSL 3a TSL 4a 

Primary Energy Saved (quads) ....................................................... 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.12 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................ 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................ 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ......................................... 0.063 0.097 0.160 0.227 

NPV (2006$ billion): 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................... (0.61) (1.60) (3.06) (4.94) 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................... (1.07) (2.96) (5.72) (9.28) 

Industry Impacts: 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ................................................... 44–(199) 117–(386) 237–(675) 267–(1165) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ........................................................ 3–(14) 8–(27) 16–(47) 18–(80) 

Cumulative Emissions Impacts †: 

CO2 (Mt) ................................................................................... 11.49 16.95 27.54 38.51 

NOX (kt) .................................................................................... 0.58–14.25 0.85–20.85 1.37–33.74 1.91–47.04 

Hg (t) ......................................................................................... 0–0.25 0–0.37 0–0.60 0–0.84 

Mean LCC Savings * (2006$) .......................................................... (3) (10) (19) (31) 

Median PBP (years) ........................................................................ 29.4 57.1 81.4 114.6 

LCC Results: 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................. 42.0 45.2 45.9 46.2 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................... 53.7 53.7 53.7 53.7 

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................... 4.3 1.1 0.4 0.1 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008 Reference Case. 

† CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NOX emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as 

well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps. 

First, DOE considered TSL 4a, the 

max-tech level for microwave oven 

cooking efficiency. TSL 4a would likely 

save 0.12 quads of energy through 2042, 

an amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.03 quads. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects that TSL 4a 

would result in a net decrease of $4.94 

billion in NPV, using a discount rate of 

seven percent. The emissions reductions 

at TSL 4a are 38.51 Mt of CO2, 1.91 kt 

to 47.04 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 0.84 t of 

Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 is 

estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 0.227 gigawatts (GW) 

under TSL 4a. 

At TSL 4a, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer will 

experience an increase in LCC. 

Although DOE estimates that all 

microwave oven consumers purchase 

products with an EF at the baseline 

level, 54 percent of consumers are 

estimated to purchase microwave ovens 

with standby power consumption lower 

than the baseline standby consumption. 

As a result, the associated annual energy 

use for the 54 percent of consumers 

with low microwave oven standby 

power is lower than the annual energy 

consumption of products meeting TSL 

4a. Therefore, the 54 percent of 

consumers purchasing low standby 

power consuming microwave ovens are 

not impacted by TSL 4a. For the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62118 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

microwave oven consumers in the 

Nation impacted by TSL 4a, DOE 

estimates that nearly all will be 

burdened with LCC increases. The 

median payback period of the average 

consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the equipment. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges at TSL 4a from an 

increase of $267 million to a decrease of 

$1,165 million. At TSL 4a, DOE 

recognizes the risk of very large negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations 

about reduced profit margins are 

realized. In particular, if the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 4a could result in a net 

loss of 80 percent in INPV to microwave 

oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4a, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 4a, the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the potential multibillion dollar negative net economic 

cost to the Nation, the economic burden 

on consumers, and the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

DOE considered TSL 3a next. Primary 

energy savings are estimated at 0.11 

quads of energy through 2042, which 

DOE considers significant. Discounted 

at seven percent, the energy savings 

through 2042 would be 0.03 quads. For 

the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that 

TSL 3a would result in a net decrease 

of $3.06 billion in NPV, using a 

discount rate of seven percent. The 

emissions reductions are projected to be 

27.54 Mt of CO2, 1.37 kt to 33.74 kt of 

NOX, and 0 t to 0.60 t of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 

3a is estimated to decrease by 0.160 GW. 

At TSL 3a, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer will 

experience an increase in LCC. 

Although DOE estimates that all 

microwave oven consumers purchase 

products with an EF at the baseline 

level, 54 percent of consumers are 

estimated to purchase microwave ovens 

with standby power consumption lower 

than the baseline standby consumption. 

As a result, the associated annual energy 

use for the 54 percent of consumers 

with low microwave oven standby 

power is lower than the annual energy 

consumption of products meeting TSL 

3a. Therefore, the 54 percent of 

consumers purchasing low standby 

power consuming microwave ovens are 

not impacted by TSL 3a. For the 

microwave oven consumers in the 

Nation impacted by TSL 3a, DOE 

estimates that nearly all will be 

burdened with LCC increases. The 

median payback period of the average 

consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the equipment. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges from an increase of $237 

million to a decrease of $675 million. At 

TSL 3a, DOE recognizes the risk of very 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 3a could 

result in a net loss of 47 percent in INPV 

to microwave oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 3a, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 3a, the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the potential multibillion dollar negative net economic 

cost to the Nation, the economic burden 

on consumers, and the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

DOE considered TSL 2a next. DOE 

projects that TSL 2a would save 0.09 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.02 quads. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects TSL 2 to result 

in net cost in NPV of $1.60 billion. The 

estimated emissions reductions are 

16.95 Mt of CO2, 0.85 kt to 20.85 kt of 

NOX, and 0 t to 0.37 t of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 

2 would likely decrease by 0.097 GW. 

At TSL 2a, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer will 

experience an increase in LCC. 

Although DOE estimates that all 

microwave oven consumers purchase 

products with an EF at the baseline 

level, 54 percent of consumers are 

estimated to purchase microwave ovens 

with standby power consumption lower 

than the baseline standby consumption. 

As a result, the associated annual energy 

use for the 54 percent of consumers 

with low microwave oven standby 

power is lower than the annual energy 

consumption of products meeting TSL 

2a. Therefore, the 54 percent of 

consumers purchasing low standby 

power consuming microwave ovens are 

not impacted by TSL 2a. For the 

microwave oven consumers in the 

Nation impacted by TSL 2a, DOE 

estimates that almost 98 percent will be 

burdened with LCC increases. The 

median payback period of the average 

consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the equipment. 

At TSL 2a, the projected change in 

INPV range from an increase of $117 

million to a decrease of $386 million. At 

TSL 2a, DOE recognizes the risk of 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 2a could 

result in a net loss of 27 percent in INPV 

to microwave oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 2a, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 2a, the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the potential negative 

net economic cost (over a billion 

dollars) to the Nation, the economic 

burden on consumers, and the large 

capital conversion costs that could 

result in a reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

DOE considered TSL 1a next. DOE 

projects that TSL 1a would save 0.08 

quads of energy through 2042, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.02 quads. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects TSL 1a to result 

in net cost in NPV of $610 million. The 

estimated emissions reductions are 

11.49 Mt of CO2, 0.58 kt to 14.25 kt of 

NOX, and 0 t to 0.25 t of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 under TSL 

1a would likely decrease by 0.063 GW. 

At TSL 1a, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer will 

experience an increase in LCC. 

Although DOE estimates that all 

microwave oven consumers purchase 

products with an EF at the baseline 

level, 54 percent of consumers are 

estimated to purchase microwave ovens 

with standby power consumption lower 

than the baseline standby consumption. 

As a result, the associated annual energy 

use for the 54 percent of consumers 

with low microwave oven standby 

power is lower than the annual energy 

consumption of products meeting TSL 

1a. Therefore, the 54 percent of 

consumers purchasing low standby 

power consuming microwave ovens are 

not impacted by TSL 2a. For the 

microwave oven consumers in the 

Nation impacted by TSL 1a, DOE 

estimates that almost 91 percent will be 

burdened with LCC increases. The 

median payback period of the average 

consumer is projected to be 

substantially longer than the mean 

lifetime of the equipment. 

At TSL 1a, the projected change in 

INPV range from a decrease of $44 

million to a decrease of $199 million. At 

TSL 1a, DOE recognizes the risk of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62119 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 1a could 

result in a net loss of 14 percent in INPV 

to microwave oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 1a, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 1a, the benefits of energy savings 

and emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the potential multimillion dollar negative net economic 

cost to the Nation, the economic burden 

on consumers, and the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

Based upon the available information, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

none of the TSLs for microwave oven 

cooking efficiency are economically 

justified. Therefore, DOE proposes no 

standards for microwave cooking 

efficiency or EF. 

Table V.61 presents a summary of the 

quantitative results for the four 

microwave oven TSLs pertaining to 

standby power. 

TABLE V.61—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER

Category TSL 1b TSL 2b TSL 3b TSL 4b 

Primary Energy Saved (quads) ............................................... 0.23 0.33 0.45 0.69 

7% Discount Rate .................................................................... 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.19 

3% Discount Rate .................................................................... 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.38 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ................................. 0.145 0.222 0.320 0.525 

NPV (2006$ billion): 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................. 0.91 1.25 1.56 1.61 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................. 2.03 2.79 3.52 3.90 

Industry Impacts: 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ........................................... (22)–(26) (35)–(48) (37)–(71) (35)–(172) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ................................................ (1.50)–(1.77) (2.44)–(3.28) (2.52)–(4.92) (2.40)–(11.87)

Cumulative Emissions Impacts † 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................... 23.15 35.19 50.48 82.12 

NOX (kt) ............................................................................ 1.23–30.30 1.87–46.02 2.67–65.96 4.35–107.23 

Hg (t) ................................................................................. 0–0.50 0–0.76 0–1.09 0–1.77 

Mean LCC Savings * (2006$): ................................................. 6 13 18 19 

Median PBP (years): ............................................................... 0.3 0.6 1.5 3.1 

LCC Results: 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

No Impact (%) .................................................................. 53.7 19.1 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................. 43.3 80.9 100.0 100.0 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008 Reference Case. 

† CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants. NOX emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as 

well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps. 

First, DOE considered TSL 4b, the 

max-tech level which affects only the 

standby power consumption of 

microwave ovens. TSL 4b would likely 

save 0.69 quads of energy through 2042, 

an amount DOE considers significant. 

Discounted at seven percent, the 

projected energy savings through 2042 

would be 0.19 quads. For the Nation as 

a whole, DOE projects that TSL 4b 

would result in a net increase of $1.61 

billion in NPV, using a discount rate of 

seven percent. The emissions reductions 

at TSL 4b are 82.12 Mt of CO2, 4.35 kt 

to 107.23 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 1.77 t 

of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2042 

is estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 0.525 gigawatts (GW) 

under TSL 4b. 

At TSL 4b, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer will 

experience a decrease in LCC of $19. 

DOE also estimates all consumers in the 

Nation that purchase microwave ovens 

will realize some level of LCC savings. 

The median payback period of the 

average consumer at TSL 4b is projected 

to be 3.1 years, substantially shorter 

than the lifetime of the product. 

Although DOE estimates that all 

microwave ovens consumers would 

benefit economically from TSL 4b, the 

reduction in standby power 

consumption at that level would result 

in the loss of certain functions which 

provide utility to consumers, 

specifically the continual display of the 

time of day. Because it is uncertain as 

to how greatly this function is valued by 

consumers, DOE is concerned that TSL 

4b may result in significant loss of 

consumer utility. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges from a decrease of $35 

million to a decrease of $172 million. At 

TSL 4b, DOE recognizes the risk of very 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 4b could 

result in a net loss of 11.87 percent in 

INPV to microwave oven manufacturers. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4b, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 4b, the benefits of energy 

savings, economic benefit, and 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the potential economic 

burden on consumers from loss of 

product utility and the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

DOE considered TSL 3b next. Primary 

energy savings are estimated at 0.45 

quads of energy through 2042, which 

DOE considers significant. Discounted 

at seven percent, the energy savings 

through 2042 would be 0.12 quads. For 

the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that 

TSL 3b would result in a net increase of 

$1.56 billion in NPV, using a discount 

rate of seven percent. The emissions 

reductions are projected to be 50.48 Mt 

of CO2, 2.67 kt to 65.96 kt of NOX, and 

0 t to 1.09 t of Hg. Total generating 

capacity in 2042 under TSL 3b is 

estimated to decrease by 0.320 GW. 

At TSL 3b, DOE projects that the 

average microwave oven consumer will 

experience a decrease in LCC of $18. 

DOE also estimates all consumers in the 

Nation that purchase microwave ovens 

would realize some level of LCC 

savings. The median payback period of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62120 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the average consumer at TSL 3b is 

projected to be 1.5 years, substantially 

shorter than the lifetime of the product. 

TSL 3b not only economically 

benefits all consumers, but DOE 

estimates that the reduction in standby 

power consumption (down to a level of 

no great than 1.0 watt) would not 

impact consumer utility. For example, 

the continual display of time which 

would be lost under TSL 4b is retained 

at TSL 3b. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges from a decrease of $37 

million to a decrease of $71 million. At 

TSL 3b, DOE recognizes the risk of very 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 3b could 

result in a net loss of 4.92 percent in 

INPV to microwave oven manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of a TSL 3b standard outweigh 

the burdens. In particular, the Secretary 

has tentatively concluded that TSL 3b 

saves a significant amount of energy and 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Therefore, DOE 

today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens at TSL 3b. Table V.62 

demonstrates the proposed energy 

conservation standards for microwave 

ovens. 

TABLE V.62—PROPOSED ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

MICROWAVE OVEN STANDBY POWER

CONSUMPTION

Product class 

Proposed energy 

conservation 

standards 

Microwave Oven with 

or without Thermal 

Elements.

Maximum Standby 

Power = 1.0 Watt. 

c. Commercial Clothes Washers 

Table V.63 presents a summary of the 

quantitative results for each CCW TSL. 

TABLE V.63—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Primary Energy Saved (quads) ........................................... 0.05 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.17 

7% Discount Rate ................................................................ 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 

3% Discount Rate ................................................................ 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.09 

Primary Water Saved (trillion gallons) ................................. 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.24 

7% Discount Rate ................................................................ 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 

3% Discount Rate ................................................................ 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** .............................. 0.009 0.020 0.028 0.030 0.031 

NPV (2006$ billion): 

7% Discount Rate ......................................................... (0.001) 0.32 0.46 0.50 0.55 

3% Discount Rate ......................................................... 0.04 0.83 1.16 1.27 1.39 

Industry Impacts: 

Industry NPV (2006$ million) ........................................ 4–3 (4)–(6) (15)–(17) (18)–(20) (30)–(32) 

Industry NPV (% Change) ............................................ 6.5–4.9 (6.4)–(10.3) (26.5)–(31.1) (32.0)–(36.8) (53.1)–(58.2) 

Cumulative Emissions Impacts † 

CO2 (Mt) ........................................................................ 3.79 8.30 11.55 12.28 12.73 

NOX (kt) ........................................................................ 1.43–3.25 3.04–7.13 4.25–9.93 4.51–10.56 4.67–10.95

Hg (t) ............................................................................. 0–0.05 0–0.12 0–0.17 0–0.18 0–0.19 

Wastewater Discharge Impacts (trillion gallons) ................. 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.23 

Mean LCC Savings * (2006$): 

Top-Loading, Multi-Family ............................................ (11.6) 154 244 244 244 

Top-Loading, Laundromat ............................................ (19.6) 166 252 252 252 

Front-Loading, Multi-Family .......................................... 8.7 52 52 134 234 

Front-Loading, Laundromat .......................................... 9.5 58 58 140 250 

Median PBP (years): 

Top-Loading, Multi-Family ............................................ 10.7 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 

Top-Loading, Laundromat ............................................ 7.4 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 

Front-Loading, Multi-Family .......................................... 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.8 2.8 

Front-Loading, Laundromat .......................................... 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 1.6 

LCC Results: 

Top-Loading 

Multi-Family 

Net Cost (%) ................................................... 45.0 15.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 

No Impact (%) ................................................ 35.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................... 19.3 81.7 87.2 87.2 87.2 

Laundromat 

Net Cost (%) ................................................... 53.4 3.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 

No Impact (%) ................................................ 35.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................... 10.9 93.6 96.1 96.1 96.1 

Front-Loading 

Multi-Family 

Net Cost (%) ................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.5 

No Impact (%) ................................................ 92.7 88.3 88.3 2.8 1.5 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................... 7.3 11.7 11.7 94.9 97.0 

Laundromat 

Net Cost (%) ................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

No Impact (%) ................................................ 92.7 88.3 88.3 2.8 1.5 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................... 7.3 11.7 11.7 97.2 98.5 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

** Changes in installed generation capacity by 2042 based on AEO 2008 Reference Case. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62121 

† CO2 emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants and at commercial buildings. NOX emissions impacts include physical reductions at power plants as well as production of emissions allowance credits where NOX emissions are subject to emissions caps. 

First, DOE considered TSL 5, the maxtech level. TSL 5 would likely save 0.17 

quads of energy and 0.24 trillion gallons 

of water through 2042, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Discounted at 

seven percent, the projected energy and 

water savings through 2042 would be 

0.04 quads and 0.06 trillion gallons, 

respectively. For the Nation as a whole, 

DOE projects that TSL 5 would result in 

a net increase of $0.55 billion in NPV, 

using a discount rate of seven percent. 

The emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 

12.73 Mt of CO2, 4.67 kt to 10.95 kt of 

NOX, and 0 t to 0.19 t of Hg. Total 

generating capacity in 2042 is estimated 

to decrease compared to the reference 

case by 0.031 gigawatts (GW) under TSL 

5. 

At TSL, 5, DOE projects that the 

average top-loading CCW consumer 

would experience a decrease in LCC of 

$244 in multi-family applications and 

$252 in laundromats. DOE also 

estimates an LCC decrease for an 

overwhelming majority of consumers in 

the Nation that purchase top-loading 

CCWs—87 percent of consumers in 

multi-family applications and 96 

percent of consumers in laundromats. 

The median payback period of the 

average consumer at TSL 5 in multifamily applications and in laundromats 

is projected to be 3.8 years and 2.4 

years, respectively. 

At TSL 5, DOE projects that the 

average front-loading CCW consumer 

would experience a decrease in LCC of 

$234 in multi-family applications and 

$250 in laundromats. DOE also 

estimates an LCC decrease for an 

overwhelming majority of consumers in 

the Nation that purchase front-loading 

CCWs—97 percent of consumers in 

multi-family applications and 99 

percent of consumers in laundromats. 

The median payback period of the 

average consumer at TSL 5 in multifamily applications and in laundromats 

is projected to be 2.8 years and 1.6 

years, respectively. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimated the 

projected change in INPV ranges from a 

total decrease of $29.5 million for both 

product classes to a total decrease of 

$32.3 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes 

the risk of very large negative impacts 

if manufacturers’ expectations about 

reduced profit margins are realized. In 

particular, if the high end of the range 

of impacts is reached as DOE expects, 

TSL 5 could result in a net loss of 58 

percent in INPV to CCW manufacturers. 

Also, DOE is especially sensitive to the 

potentially severe impacts to the LVM of 

CCWs. Since the LVM’s clothes washer 

revenue is so dependent on CCW sales, 

DOE is concerned that TSL 5 will 

disproportionately impact it. 

Although DOE recognizes the 

increased economic benefits to the 

Nation that could result from TSL 5, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of a Federal standard at TSL 5 

would be outweighed by the potential 

for disincentivizing consumers from 

purchasing more efficient front-loading 

washers. At TSL 5, front-loading 

washers are highly efficient but have a 

purchase price estimated to be $455 

more expensive than top-loading 

washers. With such a large price 

differential between the two types of 

CCWs, and with less than two percent 

of the front-loading market at TSL 5, 

DOE is concerned that significant 

numbers of potential consumers of 

front-loading washers would choose to 

purchase a less efficient top-loading 

washer. 

If potential front-loading washer 

consumers did decide to switch to less 

expensive top-loading washers, the NES 

and NPV realized from TSL 5 would be 

diminished. DOE notes that in 

developing the energy savings and water 

savings estimates in Table V.63, the 

agency held constant the ratio of frontloading to top-loading CCW shipments 

across the various TSLs. Particularly at 

TSL 3 to TSL 5, the differences in these 

estimates are small, especially at a seven 

percent discount rate. DOE requests 

comment as to whether it should 

account for the price elasticity of 

demand when calculating the 

anticipated energy and water savings at 

the different TSLs. DOE also seeks 

relevant data or other information on 

this topic. The Department believes that 

the values currently in Table V.63 

represent the high end of the potential 

energy and water savings for these TSLs. 

Taking into account price elasticity of 

demand could affect the anticipated 

energy and water savings of the various 

TSLs, and it could potentially result in 

a change in the TSL with the highest 

projected energy/water savings level. 

In addition, TSL 5 would adversely 

impact manufacturers’ INPV to a 

significant extent. Not only does the 

industry face a potential loss in industry 

INPV, but manufacturers would also 

need to make significant capital 

investments for both types of CCWs in 

order to produce both top-loading and 

front-loading washers at the maximum 

technologically feasible levels. After 

carefully considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens of 

TSL 5, the Secretary has reached the 

following initial conclusion: At TSL 5, 

the benefits of energy savings, economic 

benefit, and emissions reductions would 

be outweighed by the potential for 

disincentivizing consumers to purchase 

high-efficiency front-loading CCWs and 

the large capital conversion costs that 

could result in a substantial reduction 

in INPV for manufacturers. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would likely save 0.16 quads of energy 

and 0.21 trillion gallons of water 

through 2042, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Discounted at seven percent, 

the projected energy and water savings 

through 2042 would be 0.04 quads and 

0.05 trillion gallons, respectively. For 

the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that 

TSL 4 would result in a net increase of 

$0.50 billion in NPV, using a discount 

rate of seven percent. The emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 are 12.28 Mt of CO2, 

4.51 kt to 10.56 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 

0.18 t of Hg. Total generating capacity 

in 2042 is estimated to decrease 

compared to the reference case by 0.030 

gigawatts (GW) under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, top-loading CCWs have the 

same efficiency as TSL 5. Therefore, 

top-loading CCW consumers will 

experience the same LCC impacts and 

payback periods as TSL 5. At TSL 4 for 

front-loading CCWs, DOE projects that 

the average front-loading CCW 

consumer would experience a decrease 

in LCC of $134 in multi-family 

applications and $140 in laundromats. 

DOE also estimates an LCC decrease for 

an overwhelming majority of consumers 

in the Nation that purchase frontloading CCWs—95 percent of 

consumers in multi-family applications 

and 97 percent of consumers in 

laundromats. The median payback 

period of the average consumer at TSL 

5 in multi-family applications and in 

laundromats is projected to be 2.8 years 

and 1.7 years, respectively. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges from a decrease of $18 

million to a decrease of $20 million. At 

TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of very 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could 

result in a net loss of 37 percent in INPV 

to CCW manufacturers. Also, DOE is 

especially sensitive to the potentially 

severe impacts to the LVM of CCWs. 

Since the LVM’s clothes washer revenue 

is so dependent on CCW sales, DOE is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62122 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

concerned that TSL 4 will 

disproportionately impact it. 

Although DOE recognizes the 

increased economic benefits to the 

Nation that could result from TSL 4, 

DOE has the same concerns regarding 

TSL 4 as for TSL 5. Namely, DOE has 

concerns as to the potential of TSL 4 to 

disincentivize consumers from 

purchasing more-efficient front-loading 

washers. As a result, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the benefits 

of a Federal standard at TSL 4 would be 

outweighed by this potential adverse 

impact. At TSL 4, front-loading CCWs 

are highly efficient but have a purchase 

price estimated to be $414 more 

expensive than top-loading washers. 

With such a price differential between 

the two types of CCWs, and with less 

than four percent of the front-loading 

market meeting TSL 4, DOE is 

concerned that significant numbers of 

potential consumers of front-loading 

CCWs would be more likely choose to 

purchase a less-efficient top-loading 

CCW. If potential front-loading washer 

consumers did decide to switch to less 

expensive top-loading washers, the NES 

and NPV realized from TSL 4 would be 

diminished. In addition, TSL 4 would 

adversely impact manufacturers’ INPV 

to a significant extent. Not only does the 

industry face a potential loss in industry 

INPV, but manufacturers would also 

need to make significant capital 

investments for both types of CCWs in 

order to produce both top-loading 

washers at the maximum 

technologically feasible level and frontloading washers at a level which only 

three percent of the market currently 

meets. After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 4, the Secretary has 

reached the following initial conclusion: 

At TSL 4, the benefits of energy savings, 

economic benefit, and emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

potential for disincentivizing consumers 

to purchase high-efficiency frontloading CCWs and the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

substantial reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 3. TSL 3 

would likely save 0.15 quads of energy 

and 0.19 trillion gallons of water 

through 2042, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Discounted at seven percent, 

the projected energy and water savings 

through 2042 would be 0.04 quads and 

0.05 trillion gallons, respectively. For 

the Nation as a whole, DOE projects that 

TSL 3 would result in a net increase of 

$0.46 billion in NPV, using a discount 

rate of seven percent. The emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 are 11.55 Mt of CO2, 

4.25 kt to 9.93 kt of NOX, and 0 t to 0.17 

t of Hg. Total generating capacity in 

2042 is estimated to decrease compared 

to the reference case by 0.028 gigawatts 

(GW) under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, top-loading CCWs have the 

same efficiency as TSL 5. Therefore, 

top-loading CCW consumers would 

experience the same LCC impacts and 

payback periods as TSL 5. At TSL 3 for 

front-loading CCWs, DOE projects that 

the average front-loading CCW 

consumer would experience a decrease 

in LCC of $52 in multi-family 

applications and $58 in laundromats. 

DOE also estimates an LCC decrease for 

all consumers that do not already 

purchase front-loading CCWs with an 

efficiency meeting TSL 3. The median 

payback period of the average consumer 

at TSL 3 in multi-family applications 

and in laundromats is projected to be 

0.4 years and 0.3 years, respectively. 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges from a decrease of $15 

million to a decrease of $17 million. At 

TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk of very 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. In particular, if the 

high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 3 could 

result in a net loss of 31 percent in INPV 

to CCW manufacturers. Also, DOE is 

especially sensitive to the potential 

adverse impacts to the LVM of CCWs. 

Since the LVM’s clothes washer revenue 

is so dependent on CCW sales, DOE is 

concerned that TSL 3 will 

disproportionately impact it. 

DOE recognizes the increased 

economic benefits to the Nation that 

could result from TSL 3 but still has 

concerns of the potential for 

disincentivizing consumers from 

purchasing more-efficient front-loading 

washers. But at TSL 3, the price 

difference between front-loading and 

top-loading CCWs drops to $375. More 

importantly, over 88 percent of the 

front-loading market already meets TSL 

3. With such a large front-loading 

market share at TSL 3, it indicates the 

current cost-effectiveness to consumers 

of this TSL. Therefore, DOE believes 

that the remaining 12 percent of frontloading CCW consumers not already 

purchasing washers at TSL 3 would 

likely to do so if standards are set at TSL 

3. DOE notes that TSL 3 adversely 

impacts manufacturers’ INPV. But 

because such a large percent of the 

front-loading market is at TSL 3, 

manufacturers would likely not need to 

make significant capital investments for 

front-loading CCWs. Therefore, 

significant capital investments would 

only be required in order to produce 

top-loading washers at TSL 3. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and the burdens, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that the 

benefits of a TSL 3 standard outweigh 

the burdens. In particular, the Secretary 

has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 

saves a significant amount of energy and 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Therefore, DOE 

today proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for CCWs at TSL 

3. Table V.64 demonstrates the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for CCWs. Even though DOE is 

proposing amended energy conservation 

standards for CCWs at TSL 3, DOE 

recognizes the potential adverse impacts 

to the LVM and the likelihood that 

adverse impacts may be significant for 

CCW market competition. Therefore, 

DOE will carefully consider the 

Department of Justice’s review of the 

proposed standards for CCWs before 

issuing its final rule for this product. 

TABLE V.64—PROPOSED ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS

Product class Proposed energy conservation standards 

Top-Loading .. 1.76 Modified Energy Factor/ 

8.3 Water Factor. 

Front-Loading 2.00 Modified Energy Factor/ 

5.5 Water Factor. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

DOE has determined today’s 

regulatory action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review.’’ 58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action 

was subject to review under the 

Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

The Executive Order requires that 

each agency identify in writing the 

specific market failure or other specific 

problem and that it intends to address 

that warrants new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of the 

problem to determine whether any new 

regulation is warranted. Executive Order 

12866, section 1(b)(1). 

With the exception of electric and 

some gas cooking products, DOE’s 

preliminary analysis for some 

residential gas cooking products, 

microwave ovens, and CCWs explicitly 

quantifies and accounts for the 

percentage of consumers that already 

purchase more-efficient equipment and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62123 

takes these consumers into account 

when determining the national energy 

savings associated with various TSLs. 

The preliminary analysis suggests that 

accounting for the market value of 

energy savings alone (i.e., excluding any 

possible additional ‘‘externality’’ 

benefits such as those noted below) 

would produce enough benefits to yield 

net benefits across a wide array of 

products and circumstances. In its 

ANOPR, DOE requested additional data 

(including the percentage of consumers 

purchasing more-efficient cooking 

products and the extent to which 

consumers of all product types will 

continue to purchase more-efficient 

equipment), in order to test the 

existence and extent of these consumer 

actions. DOE received no such data from 

interested parties in response to the 

ANOPR but continues to request these 

data in today’s proposed rule. 

DOE believes that there is a lack of 

consumer information and/or 

information processing capability about 

energy efficiency opportunities in the 

home appliance market. If this is the 

case, DOE would expect the energy 

efficiency for home appliances to be 

randomly distributed across key 

variables such as energy prices and 

usage levels. With the exception of some 

cooking products, DOE has already 

identified the percentage of consumers 

that already purchase more-efficient 

products. However, DOE does not 

correlate the consumer’s usage pattern 

and energy price with the efficiency of 

the purchased product. In its ANOPR, 

DOE sought data on the efficiency levels 

of existing home appliances by how 

often they are used (e.g., how many 

times or hours the product is used) and 

their associated energy prices (and/or 

geographic regions of the country). DOE 

received no such data from interested 

parties in response to the ANOPR but 

continues to request these data in 

today’s proposed rule. If DOE does 

receive data, it plans to use these data 

to test the extent to which purchasers of 

this equipment behave as if they are 

unaware of the costs associated with 

their energy consumption. Also, DOE 

seeks comment on consumer knowledge 

of the Federal ENERGY STAR program, 

and on the program’s potential as a 

resource for increasing knowledge of the 

availability and benefits of energyefficient appliances in the home 

appliance consumer market. 

A related issue is asymmetric 

information (one party to a transaction 

has more and better information than 

the other) and/or high transactions costs 

(costs of gathering information and 

effecting exchanges of goods and 

services). In many instances, the party 

responsible for an appliance purchase 

may not be the one who pays the cost 

to operate it. For example, home 

builders in large-scale developments 

often make decisions about appliances 

without input from home buyers and do 

not offer options to upgrade those 

appliances. Also, apartment owners 

normally make decisions about 

appliances, but renters often pay the 

utility bills. If there were no 

transactions costs, it would be in the 

home builders’ and apartment owners’ 

interest to install appliances that buyers 

and renters would choose. For example, 

one would expect that a renter who 

knowingly faces higher utility bills from 

low-efficiency appliances would be 

willing to pay less in rent, and the 

apartment owner would indirectly bear 

the higher utility cost. However, this 

information is not readily available, and 

it may not be in the renter’s interest to 

take the time to develop it, or, in the 

case of the landlord who installs a highefficiency appliance, to convey that 

information to the renter. 

To the extent that asymmetric 

information and/or high transactions 

costs are problems, one would expect to 

find certain outcomes for appliance 

energy efficiency. For example, all 

things being equal, one would not 

expect to see higher rents for apartments 

with high-efficiency appliances. 

Conversely, if there were symmetric 

information, one would expect 

appliances with higher energy efficiency 

in rental units where the rent includes 

utilities compared to those where the 

renter pays the utility bills separately. 

Similarly, for single-family homes, one 

would expect higher energy efficiency 

levels for replacement units than 

appliances installed in new 

construction. Within the new 

construction market, one would expect 

to see appliances with higher energy 

efficiency levels in custom-built homes 

(where the buyer has more say in 

appliance choices) than in comparable 

homes built in large-scale 

developments. 

In addition, this rulemaking is likely 

to yield certain external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of cooking products and 

CCWs that are not captured by the users 

of such equipment. These benefits 

include externalities related to 

environmental protection and energy 

security that are not reflected in energy 

prices, such as reduced emissions of 

greenhouse gases. The emissions 

reductions in today’s proposed rule are 

projected to be 76.6 Mt of CO2 and 16.1 

kt of NOX. DOE invites comments on the 

weight that DOE should place on these 

factors in its determination of the 

maximum energy efficiency level at 

which the total benefits are likely to 

exceed the total burdens resulting from 

an amended standard. 

As previously stated, DOE continues 

to seek data that might enable it to test 

for market failures or other specific 

problems for the products under 

consideration in this rulemaking. Given 

adequate data, there are ways to test for 

the extent of market failure for CCWs, 

for example. One would expect the 

owners of CCWs who also pay for their 

energy and water consumption to 

purchase machines that use less energy 

and water compared to machines whose 

owners do not pay for energy and water, 

other things being equal. To test for this 

form of market failure, DOE needs data 

on energy efficiency and water 

consumption of such units and whether 

the owner of the equipment is also the 

operator. DOE is also interested in other 

potential tests of market failure and data 

that would enable such tests. 

As noted above, DOE conducted a 

regulatory impact analysis and, under 

the Executive Order, was subject to 

review by the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB. 

DOE presented to OIRA the draft 

proposed rule and other documents 

prepared for this rulemaking, including 

the RIA, and has included these 

documents in the rulemaking record. 

They are available for public review in 

the Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–9127, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

The RIA is contained as chapter 17 in 

the TSD prepared for the rulemaking. 

The RIA consists of: (1) A statement of 

the problem addressed by this 

regulation, and the mandate for 

government action; (2) a description and 

analysis of the feasible policy 

alternatives to this regulation; (3) a 

quantitative comparison of the impacts 

of the alternatives; and (4) the national 

economic impacts of the proposed 

standard. 

The RIA calculates the effects of 

feasible policy alternatives to energy 

conservation standards for residential 

cooking products and CCWs, and 

provides a quantitative comparison of 

the impacts of the alternatives. DOE 

evaluated each alternative in terms of its 

ability to achieve significant energy 

savings at reasonable costs, and 

compared it to the effectiveness of the 

proposed rule. DOE analyzed these 

alternatives using a series of regulatory 

scenarios as input to the NIA 

Spreadsheets for the two appliance 

products, which it modified to allow 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62124 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

110Rufo, M. and F. Coito, California’s Secret 

Energy Surplus: The Potential for Energy Efficiency 

(prepared for The Energy Foundation and The 

Hewlett Foundation by Xenergy, Inc.) (2002). 

inputs for voluntary measures. For more 

details on how DOE modified the NIA 

spreadsheets to determine the impacts 

due to the various non-regulatory 

alternatives to standards, refer to 

chapter 17 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice. 

As shown in Table VI.1 below, DOE 

identified the following major policy 

alternatives for achieving increased 

energy efficiency in residential cooking 

products and CCWs: 

• No new regulatory action; 

• Financial incentives; 

• Consumer rebates; 

• Consumer tax credits; 

• Manufacturer tax credits; 

• Voluntary energy efficiency targets; 

• Bulk government purchases; 

• Early replacement; and 

• The proposed approach (national 

performance and prescriptive 

standards). 

TABLE VI.1—NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARDS

Policy alternatives 

Energy Savings * 

(quads) 

Water savings 

(trillion gallons) 

Net present value ** 

(billion $) 

7% discount 

rate 

3% discount 

rate 

Conventional Cooking Products *** 

No New Regulatory Action .................................................................. 0 NA ....................... 0 0 

Consumer Rebates ............................................................................. 0.12 NA ....................... 0.17 0.52 

Consumer Tax Credits ........................................................................ 0.05 NA ....................... 0.07 0.23 

Manufacturer Tax Credits .................................................................... 0.01 NA ....................... 0.02 0.06 

Early Replacement .............................................................................. 0.01 NA ....................... 0.07 0.12 

Today’s Standards at TSL 1 ............................................................... 0.14 NA ....................... 0.21 0.61 

Microwave Ovens: 

No New Regulatory Action .................................................................. 0 NA ....................... 0 0 

Consumer Rebates ............................................................................. 0.07 NA ....................... 0.27 0.60 

Consumer Tax Credits ........................................................................ 0.02 NA ....................... 0.07 0.16 

Manufacturer Tax Credits .................................................................... 0.01 NA ....................... 0.04 0.09 

Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets ................................................... 0.35 NA ....................... 1.22 2.82 

Early Replacement .............................................................................. 0.02 NA ....................... 0.10 0.15 

Bulk Government Purchases .............................................................. 0.01 NA ....................... 0.02 0.05 

Today’s Standards at TSL 3b ............................................................. 0.45 NA ....................... 1.56 3.52

Commercial Clothes Washers: 

No New Regulatory Action .................................................................. 0 0 .......................... 0 0 

Consumer Rebates ............................................................................. 0.08 0.08 ..................... 0.20 0.53 

Consumer Tax Credits ........................................................................ 0.01 0.02 ..................... 0.04 0.09 

Manufacturer Tax Credits .................................................................... 0.01 0.01 ..................... 0.03 0.07 

Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets † ................................................ 0.03 0.03 ..................... 0.08 0.21 

Early Replacement .............................................................................. 0.01 0.01 ..................... 0.14 0.22 

Bulk Government Purchases † ............................................................ 0.01 0.01 ..................... 0.03 0.08 

Today’s Standards at TSL 3 ............................................................... 0.15 0.19 ..................... 0.46 1.16 

* Energy savings are in source quads. 

** Net present value is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. DOE determined the net present value from 2012 to 

2042 in billions of 2006 dollars. 

*** Voluntary energy efficiency target and bulk government purchase alternatives are not considered because the percentage of the market at 

TSL 1 (today’s proposed standard) is well over the market adoption target level that each alternative strives to attain. 

† Voluntary energy efficiency target and bulk government purchase alternatives are not considered for front-loading washers because the percentage of the market at TSL 3 (today’s proposed standard) is well over the market adoption target level that each alternative strives to attain. 

The net present value amounts shown 

in Table VI.1 refer to the NPV for 

consumers. The costs to the government 

of each policy (such as rebates or tax 

credits) are not included in the costs for 

the NPV since, on balance, consumers 

would be both paying for (through 

taxes) and receiving the benefits of the 

payments. The following paragraphs 

discuss each of the policy alternatives 

listed in Table VI.1. (See the TSD 

accompanying this notice, chapter 17.) 

No New Regulatory Action. The case 

in which no regulatory action is taken 

with regard to cooking products and 

CCWs constitutes the ‘‘base case’’ (or 

‘‘No Action’’) scenario. In this case, 

between 2012 and 2042, conventional 

cooking products are expected to use 

10.3 quads of primary energy, 

microwave ovens 5.2 quads, and CCWs 

0.97 quads along with 2.2 trillion 

gallons of water. Since this is the base 

case, energy savings and NPV are zero 

by definition. 

Consumer Rebates. Consumer rebates 

cover a portion of the incremental 

installed cost difference between 

products meeting baseline efficiency 

levels and those meeting higher 

efficiency levels, which generally result 

in a higher percentage of consumers 

purchasing more-efficient models. DOE 

utilized market penetration curves from 

a study that analyzed the potential of 

energy efficiency in California.110 The 

penetration curves are a function of 

benefit-cost ratio (i.e., lifetime operating 

costs savings divided by increased total 

installed costs) to estimate the increased 

market share of more-efficient products 

given incentives by a rebate program. 

Using specific rebate amounts, DOE 

calculated, for each of the considered 

products, the benefit-cost ratio of the 

more-efficient appliance with and 

without the rebate to project the 

increased market penetration of the 

product due to a rebate program. 

For conventional cooking products 

meeting the efficiency levels in TSL 1 

(i.e., gas cooking products without 

constant burning pilot lights), DOE 

estimated that the annual increase in 

consumer purchases of these products 

due to consumer rebates would be 7.8 

percent. DOE selected the portion of the 

incremental costs covered by the rebate 

(i.e., 100 percent) using data from rebate 

programs conducted by 88 gas utilities, 

electric utilities, and other State 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62125 

111Because DOE was not able to identify 

consumer rebate programs specific to conventional 

cooking products, rebate amounts for another 

kitchen appliance, dishwashers, were used to 

estimate the impact from a rebate program 

providing incentives for more-efficient cooking 

products. 

112 Itron and KEMA, 2004/2005 Statewide 

Residential Retrofit Single-Family Energy Efficiency 

Rebate Evaluation (prepared for the California 

Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas And 

Electric Company, San Diego Gas And Electric 

Company, Southern California Edison, Southern 

California Gas Company, CPUC–ID#: 1115–04) 

(2007). 

113 KEMA, Consumer Product Market Progress 

Evaluation Report 3 (prepared for Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance, Report #07–174) (2007). 

114Rufo, M. and F. Coito, op. cit. 

115Because DOE was not able to identify 

consumer tax credit programs specific to 

conventional cooking products and microwave 

ovens, increased market penetrations for another 

kitchen appliance, dishwashers, were used to 

estimate the impact from a tax credit program 

providing incentives for more-efficient 

conventional cooking products and microwave 

ovens. 

116Because DOE was not able to identify 

consumer tax credit programs specific to 

commercial clothes washers, increased market 

penetrations for residential clothes washers were 

used to estimate the impact from a tax credit 

program providing incentives for more-efficient 

commercial clothes washers. 

117 K. Train, Customer Decision Study: Analysis 

of Residential Customer Equipment Purchase 

Continued 

government agencies.111 DOE estimated 

that the impact of this policy would be 

to permanently transform the market so 

that the increased market share seen in 

the first year of the program would be 

maintained throughout the forecast 

period. At the estimated participation 

rates, consumer rebates would be 

expected to provide 0.12 quads of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$0.17 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate). 

For microwave ovens meeting the 

efficiency levels at TSL 3b (i.e., 

maximum standby power consumption 

of 1.0 watt), DOE estimated that the 

percentage of consumers purchasing 

more-efficient products due to 

consumer rebates would increase 

annually by 9.9 percent. DOE assumed 

that the rebate would cover the entire 

incremental cost for this product since 

that cost is so small. DOE estimated that 

the impact of this policy would be to 

permanently transform the market so 

that the increased market share seen in 

the first year of the program would be 

maintained throughout the forecast 

period. At the estimated participation 

rates, consumer rebates would be 

expected to provide 0.07 quads of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$0.27 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate). 

For CCWs meeting TSL 3, DOE 

estimated that the percentage of 

consumers purchasing the moreefficient products due to consumer 

rebates would increase annually by 40.2 

percent for top-loading washers and 4.0 

percent for front-loading washers. DOE 

selected the rebate amount using data 

from rebate programs for CCWs 

conducted by 24 gas, electric, and water 

utilities and other agencies. DOE 

estimated that the impact of this policy 

would be to permanently transform the 

market so that the increased market 

share seen in the first year of the 

program would be maintained 

throughout the forecast period. At the 

estimated participation rates, consumer 

rebates would be expected to provide 

0.08 quads of national energy savings, 

85 billion gallons of national water 

savings, and an NPV of $0.20 billion (at 

a seven-percent discount rate). 

Although DOE estimated that 

consumer rebates would provide 

national benefits for conventional 

cooking products, microwave ovens, 

and CCWs, these benefits would be 

smaller than the benefits resulting from 

national performance standards at the 

proposed levels. Thus, DOE rejected 

consumer rebates as a policy alternative 

to national performance standards. 

Consumer Tax Credits. Consumer tax 

credits cover a percentage of the 

incremental installed cost difference 

between products meeting baseline 

efficiency levels and those with higher 

efficiencies. Consumer tax credits are 

considered a viable non-regulatory 

market transformation program as 

evidenced by the inclusion of Federal 

consumer tax credits in EPACT 2005 for 

various residential appliances. (section 

1333 of EPACT 2005; codified at 26 

U.S.C. 25C) DOE reviewed the market 

impact of tax credits offered by the 

Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) 

(ODOE, No. 35 at p. 1) and Montana 

Department of Revenue (MDR) (MDR, 

No. 36 at p. 1) to estimate the effect of 

a national tax credit program. To help 

estimate the impacts from such a 

program, DOE also reviewed analyses 

prepared for the California Public 

Utilities Commission,112 the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance,113 and the 

Energy Foundation/Hewlett 

Foundation.114 For each of the 

appliance products considered for this 

rulemaking, DOE estimated that the 

market effect of a tax credit program 

would gradually increase over a time 

period until it reached its maximum 

impact. Once the tax credit program 

attained its maximum effect, DOE 

assumed the impact of the policy would 

be to permanently transform the market 

at this level. 

For conventional cooking products, 

DOE estimated that the market share of 

efficient products meeting TSL 1 would 

increase by 0.7 percent in 2012 and 

increase over a six-year period to an 

annual maximum of 2.8 percent in 2020. 

At these estimated participation rates, 

consumer tax credits would be expected 

to provide 0.05 quads of national energy 

savings and an NPV of $0.07 billion (at 

a seven-percent discount rate). For 

microwave ovens, DOE estimated that 

the market share of efficient products 

meeting TSL 3b would increase by 0.7 

percent in 2012, and increase over a 

nine-year period to an annual maximum 

of 2.8 percent in 2020.115 At these 

estimated participation rates, consumer 

tax credits would be expected to 

provide 0.02 quads of national energy 

savings and an NPV of $0.07 billion (at 

a seven-percent discount rate). 

For CCWs, DOE estimated that 

consumer tax credits would induce an 

increase of 1.3 percent in 2012 in the 

purchase of products meeting TSL 3 and 

eventually increase to a maximum of 5.8 

percent in 2020 for both top-loading and 

front-loading washers.116 At the 

estimated participation rates, consumer 

tax credits would be expected to 

provide 0.01 quads of national energy 

savings, 16 billion gallons of national 

water savings, and an NPV of $0.04 

billion (at a seven-percent discount 

rate). 

DOE estimated that while consumer 

tax credits would yield national benefits 

for conventional cooking products, 

microwave ovens, and CCWs, these 

benefits would be much smaller than 

the benefits from the proposed national 

performance standards. Thus, DOE 

rejected consumer tax credits as a policy 

alternative to national performance 

standards. 

Manufacturer Tax Credits. 

Manufacturer tax credits are considered 

a viable non-regulatory market 

transformation program as evidenced by 

the inclusion of Federal tax credits in 

EPACT 2005 for manufacturers of 

residential appliances. (Section 1334 of 

EPACT 2005; codified at 26 U.S.C. 45M) 

Similar to consumer tax credits, 

manufacturer tax credits would 

effectively result in lower product 

prices to consumers by an amount that 

covered part of the incremental price 

difference between products meeting 

baseline efficiency levels and those 

meeting higher efficiency levels. 

Because these tax credits would go to 

manufacturers instead of consumers, 

research indicates that fewer consumers 

would be affected by a manufacturer tax 

credit program than by consumer tax 

credits.117 118 Although consumers 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62126 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Decisions (prepared for Southern California Edison 

by Cambridge Systematics, Pacific Consulting 

Services, The Technology Applications Group, and 

California Survey Research Services) (1994). 

118Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, EndUse Forecasting Group. Analysis of Tax Credits for 

Efficient Equipment (1997). Available at: http:// 

enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/TaxCredits.html. (Last 

accessed April 24, 2008.) 

119 DOE assumed that the manufacturer tax credit 

program would affect only consumers of gas 

cooking products, who did not need electric outlets 

installed; therefore the increased percentage impact 

includes only those consumers. 

120The efficiency gains of CRT televisions, like 

those of microwaves, come from reducing standby 

losses. 

121Sanchez, M.C., C.A. Webber, R. Brown, and 

G.K. Homan, 2007 Status Report—Savings 

Estimates for the ENERGY STAR Voluntary 

Labeling Program (Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, LBNL–56380) (2007). 

122 Data were not available on the market impacts 

of the CCW program. 

123Sanchez et al., op. cit. 

would benefit from price reductions 

passed through to them by the 

manufacturers, research demonstrates 

that approximately half the consumers 

who would benefit from a consumer tax 

credit program would be aware of the 

economic benefits of more efficient 

technologies included in an appliance 

manufacturer tax credit program. In 

other words, research estimates that half 

of the effect from a consumer tax credit 

program is due to publicly available 

information or promotions announcing 

the benefits of the program. This effect, 

referred to as the ‘‘announcement 

effect,’’ is not part of a manufacturer tax 

credit program. Therefore, DOE 

estimated that the effect of a 

manufacturer tax credit program would 

be only half of the maximum impact of 

a consumer tax credit program. 

For conventional cooking products, 

the percentage of consumers purchasing 

products meeting TSL 1 would be 

expected to increase by 0.6 percent due 

to a manufacturer tax credit program.119

For microwave ovens, DOE estimated 

the percentage of consumers purchasing 

products at TSL 3b would be expected 

to increase by 1.4 percent. For CCWs, 

DOE estimated the percentage of 

consumers purchasing products at TSL 

3 would be expected to increase by 2.9 

percent for both top-loading and frontloading washers. For all of the 

considered products, DOE assumed that 

the impact of the manufacturer tax 

credit policy would be to permanently 

transform the market so that the 

increased market share seen in the first 

year of the program would be 

maintained throughout the forecast 

period. 

At the above estimated participation 

rates, manufacturer tax credits would 

provide 0.01 quads of national energy 

savings and an NPV of $0.02 billion (at 

a seven-percent discount rate) for 

conventional cooking products, 0.01 

quads of national energy savings and an 

NPV of $0.04 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate) for microwave ovens, and 

0.01 quads of national energy savings, 

12 billion gallons of national water 

savings, and an NPV of $0.03 billion (at 

a seven-percent discount rate) for CCWs. 

DOE estimated that while 

manufacturer tax credits would yield 

national benefits for conventional 

cooking products, microwave ovens, 

and CCWs, these benefits would be 

much smaller than the benefits from 

national performance standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected manufacturer tax credits 

as a policy alternative to the proposed 

national performance standards. 

Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets. 

DOE estimated the impact of voluntary 

energy efficiency targets by reviewing 

the historical and projected market 

transformation performance of past and 

current ENERGY STAR programs. 

To estimate the impacts from a 

voluntary energy efficiency program 

targeting the adoption of microwave 

ovens meeting TSL 3b, DOE evaluated 

the ENERGY STAR program’s 

experience with cathode ray tube (CRT) 

televisions,120 as well as other consumer 

electronics products.121 Over a 10-year 

period spanning 1998–2007, the 

ENERGY STAR program estimated the 

annual market share increases of CRT 

televisions and other consumer 

electronics meeting qualifying efficiency 

levels due to the ENERGY STAR 

program which increased to a maximum 

of 58 percent. DOE applied this same 

pattern of market share increase to 

microwave ovens beginning in 2012. 

Because CRT televisions and microwave 

ovens have similar characteristics (i.e., 

electronic or electric appliance with an 

overwhelming majority of households 

owning the product), DOE believes it is 

reasonable to estimate the impacts of the 

ENERGY STAR program for microwave 

ovens with the impacts that have been 

realized for CRT televisions. After 

attaining this maximum market share 

after 10 years, DOE’s analysis 

maintained that market share 

throughout the remainder of the forecast 

period. DOE estimated that voluntary 

energy efficiency targets would be 

expected to provide 0.35 quads of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$1.22 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate). Although this program 

would provide national benefits, DOE’s 

analysis indicates that they would be 

smaller than the benefits resulting from 

the proposed national performance 

standards. Thus, DOE rejected the use of 

voluntary energy efficiency targets as a 

policy alternative to national 

performance standards. 

To estimate the impacts from a 

voluntary energy efficiency program 

targeting the adoption of top-loading 

CCWs meeting TSL 3, DOE evaluated 

the potential impacts of expanding the 

Federal government’s existing ENERGY 

STAR program for CCWs. DOE modeled 

the voluntary efficiency program based 

on the ENERGY STAR program’s 

experience with RCWs.122 123 Over the 

period spanning 2007–2025, ENERGY 

STAR projected that the market share of 

RCWs meeting target efficiency levels 

due to ENERGY STAR will increase to 

a maximum of 28 percent. DOE 

estimated that an expanded voluntary 

program would increase their market 

share by half of these projected annual 

amounts for the existing ENERGY STAR 

program, reaching a maximum of 14 

percent increased market share. For 

CCWs, DOE assumed that the impacts of 

the existing ENERGY STAR program 

were already incorporated in the base 

case, and applied the same pattern of 

market share increase from an expanded 

voluntary program to CCWs beginning 

in 2012. After attaining its maximum 

market share of 14 percent in the year 

2030, DOE’s analysis maintained that 

market share throughout the remainder 

of the forecast period. DOE estimated 

that an expanded program of voluntary 

energy efficiency targets would be 

expected to provide 0.03 quads of 

national energy savings, 33 billion 

gallons of national water savings, and an 

NPV of $0.08 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate). Although this program 

would provide national benefits, they 

were estimated to be smaller than the 

benefits resulting from the proposed 

national performance standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected the use of voluntary 

energy efficiency targets as a policy 

alternative to national performance 

standards. 

DOE did not analyze the potential 

impacts of voluntary energy efficiency 

targets for front-loading CCWs or 

conventional cooking products because 

a vast majority of products already meet 

the proposed standards. In the case of 

front-loading CCWs, over 88 percent of 

the market meets TSL 3, while in the 

case of conventional cooking products, 

over 85 percent of the gas range market 

already meets TSL 1. The ENERGY 

STAR program typically targets 

products where a maximum of 

approximately 25 percent of the existing 

market meets the target efficiency 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62127 

124Sanchez, M. and A. Fanara, ‘‘New Product 

Development: The Pipeline for Future ENERGY 

STAR Growth,’’ Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE 

Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 

(2000) Vol 6, pp. 343–354. 

125Nexus and RLW Analytics, Impact, Process, 

and Market Study of the Connecticut Appliance 

Retirement Program: Overall Report, Final. 

(submitted to Northeast Utilities—Connecticut 

Light and Power and the United Illuminating 

Company by Nexus Market Research, Inc. and RLW 

Analytics, Inc.) (2005). 

126U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development—Office of Policy Development and 

Research, A Picture of Subsidized Households— 

2000 (2000). Available at: http://www.huduser.org/ 

picture2000/. (Last accessed April 24, 2008.) 

127U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey: Household Energy 

Consumption and Expenditures 2001 (2001). 

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ 

public.html. 

128Harris, J. and F. Johnson, ‘‘Potential Energy, 

Cost, and CO2 Savings from Energy-Efficient 

Government Purchase,’’ Proceedings of the ACEEE 

2000 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in 

Buildings (2000) Vol 4, pp. 147–166. 

129Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Assessment of High-Performance, Family-Sized 

Commercial Clothes Washers (DOE/EE–0218) 

(2000). 

level.124 Since the markets for frontloading CCWs and gas ranges are well 

above the 25 percent threshold, DOE did 

not consider this approach for 

conventional cooking products. 

Early Replacement. The early 

replacement policy alternative envisions 

a program to replace old, inefficient 

units with models meeting efficiency 

levels higher than baseline equipment. 

Under an early replacement program, 

State governments or electric and gas 

utilities would provide financial 

incentives to consumers to retire the 

appliance early in order to hasten the 

adoption of more-efficient products. For 

all of the considered products, DOE 

modeled this policy by applying a four 

percent increase in the replacement rate 

above the natural rate of replacement for 

failed equipment. DOE based this 

percentage increase on program 

experience with the early replacement 

of appliances in the State of 

Connecticut.125 DOE assumed the 

program would continue for as long as 

it would take to ensure that the eligible 

existing stock in the year that the 

program began (2012) was completely 

replaced. 

For conventional cooking products, 

this policy alternative would replace 

old, inefficient units with models 

meeting the efficiency levels in TSL 1. 

DOE estimated that such an early 

replacement program would be 

expected to provide 0.04 quads of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$0.07 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate). For microwave ovens, 

this policy alternative would replace 

old, inefficient units with models 

meeting the efficiency levels in TSL 3b. 

DOE estimated that such an early 

replacement program would be 

expected to provide 0.02 quads of 

national energy savings and an NPV of 

$0.10 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate). For CCWs, this policy 

alternative would replace old, 

inefficient top-loading and front-loading 

units with models meeting the 

efficiency levels in TSL 3. DOE 

estimated that such an early 

replacement program would be 

expected to provide 0.01 quads of 

national energy savings, 14 billion 

gallons of national water savings, and an 

NPV of $0.14 billion (at a seven-percent 

discount rate). 

Although DOE estimated that the 

above early replacement programs for 

each of the considered products would 

provide national benefits, they would be 

much smaller than the benefits resulting 

from national performance standards. 

Thus, DOE rejected early replacement 

incentives as a policy alternative to 

national performance standards. 

Bulk Government Purchases. Under 

this policy alternative, the government 

sector would be encouraged to shift 

their purchases to products that meet 

the target efficiency levels above 

baseline levels. Aggregating public 

sector demand could provide a market 

signal to manufacturers and vendors 

that some of their largest customers 

sought suppliers with products that met 

an efficiency target at favorable prices. 

This program also could induce ‘‘market 

pull’’ impacts through manufacturers 

and vendors achieving economies of 

scale for high-efficiency products. DOE 

assumed that Federal, State, and local 

government agencies could administer 

such a program. At the Federal level, 

such a program would add microwave 

ovens to the products for which FEMP 

has energy efficient procurement 

specifications and would modify the 

existing FEMP specifications for CCWs. 

DOE modeled this program by assuming 

an increase in the installation of 

equipment meeting higher efficiency 

levels for those households where 

government agencies purchase or 

influence the purchase of appliances. 

For microwave ovens, this program 

would encourage the government sector 

to shift their purchases to units that 

meet the efficiency levels in TSL 3b. 

Based on data from the 2005 AHS, there 

are approximately two million housing 

units that are publicly owned, 

representing about 1.6 percent of all 

U.S. households.126 Per RECS 2001, 76 

percent of Federally owned housing 

units have microwave ovens.127

Therefore, DOE estimated that 1.2 

million publicly owned housing units 

have microwave ovens. Based on 

research of the effectiveness of bulk 

government purchasing programs, DOE 

estimated that the market share of moreefficient microwave ovens in publicly 

owned housing would increase at a rate 

of eight percent per year over a 10-year 

period (2012–2021) and remain at the 

2021 level for the remainder of the 

forecast period.128 DOE estimated that 

bulk government purchases of 

microwave ovens would be expected to 

provide 0.01 quads of national energy 

savings and an NPV of $0.02 billion (at 

a seven-percent discount rate), benefits 

which would be much smaller than 

those estimated for the proposed 

national performance standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected bulk government 

purchases as a policy alternative to 

national performance standards. 

For CCWs, this program would 

encourage the government sector to shift 

its purchases to top-loading units that 

meet the efficiency levels in TSL 3. DOE 

estimated that this policy would apply 

to multifamily buildings that are 

government-owned. Based on a 

technology review prepared for FEMP 

by Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL), approximately 7000 

CCWs (representing a 3.2 percent 

market share) were purchased in the 

year 2000 for Federal buildings.129

Based on research of the effectiveness of 

bulk government purchasing programs, 

DOE estimated that the market share of 

more-efficient CCWs in Federally 

owned multifamily buildings would 

increase at a rate of eight percent per 

year over a 10-year period (2012–2021) 

and remain at the 2021 level for the 

remainder of the forecast period. DOE 

estimated that bulk government 

purchases would be expected to provide 

0.01 quads of national energy savings, 

13 billion gallons of national water 

savings, and an NPV of $0.03 billion (at 

a seven-percent discount rate), benefits 

which would be much smaller than 

those estimated for the proposed 

national performance standards. Thus, 

DOE rejected bulk government 

purchases as a policy alternative to 

national performance standards. 

DOE did not analyze the potential 

impacts of bulk government purchases 

for front-loading CCWs or conventional 

cooking products because a vast 

majority of products already meet the 

proposed standards. In the case of frontloading CCWs, over 88 percent of the 

market meets TSL 3, while in the case 

of conventional cooking products, over 

85 percent of the gas range market 

already meets TSL 1. FEMP 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62128 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

130Refer to: http://www.dnb.com/us/. 

procurement specifications typically 

promote products in the top 25 percent 

of the existing product offerings in 

terms of efficiency. Since most of the 

front-loading CCWs and gas ranges sold 

in the base case already comply with 

such specifications, DOE was not able to 

consider this program as a source of 

data for top-loading CCWs and 

conventional cooking products. 

National Performance Standards (TSL 

1 for conventional cooking products, 

TSL 3b for microwave ovens, and TSL 

3 for CCWs). As indicated in the 

paragraphs above, none of the 

alternatives DOE examined would save 

as much energy as the proposed 

standards. Therefore, DOE proposes to 

adopt the efficiency levels listed in 

section V.C. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site: http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. 68 FR 7990. A regulatory 

flexibility analysis examines the impact 

of the rule on small entities and 

considers alternative ways of reducing 

negative impacts. DOE identified 

producers of all products covered by 

this rulemaking which have 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States. DOE then looked at 

publicly available data and contacted 

manufacturers, where needed, to 

determine if they meet the SBA’s 

definition of a small manufacturing 

facility. 

For the manufacturers of products 

covered by this rulemaking, the SBA has 

set three size thresholds, which define 

which entities are ‘‘small businesses’’ 

for the purposes of the statute. Since all 

CCW manufacturers also produce 

RCWs, limits for both categories are 

presented in Table VI.2, along with the 

size limits of household cooking 

appliance manufacturers. DOE used the 

small business size standards published 

on March 11, 2008, as amended, by the 

SBA to determine whether any small 

entities would be required to comply 

with the rule. 61 FR 3286 (codified at 13 

CFR part 121.) The size standards are 

listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description. 

VI.2—SBA AND NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS RULE

Industry description Revenue limit Employee 

limit NAICS 

Residential Laundry Equipment Manufacturing ............................................................. N/A ...................................... 1,000 335224 

Commercial Laundry Equipment Manufacturing ............................................................ N/A ...................................... 500 333312 

Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing ............................................................... N/A ...................................... 750 335221 

1. Cooking Products 

The conventional cooking appliance 

industry is characterized by both 

domestic and international 

manufacturers. Most conventional 

cooking appliances are currently 

manufactured in the United States. 

Consolidation within the cooking 

products industry has reduced the 

number of parent companies that 

manufacture similar equipment under 

different affiliates and labels. 

DOE conducted a market survey and 

created a list of every manufacturer that 

makes conventional cooking appliances 

for sale in the United States. DOE also 

asked stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small manufacturers. DOE 

then reviewed publicly available data 

and contacted manufacturers, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

meet the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small 

business’’ in the cooking appliance 

industry. Based on this analysis, DOE 

estimates that there are two small 

domestic manufacturers of conventional 

cooking appliances. One of these 

appliance manufacturers has production 

limited to ranges, while the other 

produces cooktops, ranges, hoods, wall 

ovens, and cooking ventilation 

equipment. Before issuing this notice of 

proposed rulemaking, DOE contacted 

both small businesses, and one of them 

agreed to be interviewed. Dun and 

Bradstreet reports that both companies 

are privately owned, have less than 300 

employees, and have annual revenues of 

less than $60 million.130 DOE also 

obtained information about small 

business impacts while interviewing 

manufacturers that exceed the small 

business size threshold of 750 

employees in this industry. 

DOE found that, as it pertains to the 

elimination of standing pilots, small 

manufacturers have the same concerns 

as the remaining high-volume 

manufacturer of gas cooking appliances 

with standing pilot ignition systems. 

DOE summarized the key issues in 

section IV.G.3.a of today’s notice. One 

small business manufacturer objected to 

the potential elimination of standing 

pilot ignition systems, because 25 

percent of its unit shipments feature 

such ignition systems. This 

manufacturer noted that appliances 

with standing pilot lights have become 

a niche market, with progressively fewer 

competitors offering these types of 

products. DOE found some differences 

in the R&D emphasis and marketing 

strategies between small business 

manufacturers and large manufacturers, 

as smaller businesses tend to focus on 

appliance sizes not offered by larger 

manufacturers. However, DOE believes 

the GRIM analysis, which models each 

product class separately, still represents 

the small businesses affected by 

standards. The qualitative and 

quantitative GRIM results are 

summarized in section V.B.2 of today’s 

notice. 

DOE reviewed the standard levels 

considered in today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. Based on the 

foregoing, DOE determined that it 

cannot certify that these proposed 

energy conservation standard levels, if 

promulgated, would have no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. DOE made this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62129 

131The EPCA provisions discussed in the 

remainder of this subsection directly apply to 

covered products, and also apply to certain covered 

equipment, such as commercial clothes washers, by 

virtue of 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). 

determination because of the potential 

impacts that the proposed energy 

conservation standard levels under 

consideration for cooking appliances 

that eliminate standing pilots would 

have on the manufacturers, including 

the small businesses, which produce 

them. Consequently, DOE has prepared 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) for this rulemaking. The IRFA 

describes potential impacts on small 

businesses associated with the 

elimination of standing pilots from 

conventional cooking appliance design 

and manufacturing. 

The potential impacts on cooking 

appliance manufacturers are discussed 

in the following sections. DOE has 

transmitted a copy of this IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for review. 

a. Reasons for the Proposed Rule 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ The program covers 

consumer products and certain 

commercial products (all of which are 

referred to hereafter as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including residential 

cooking products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(10)) 

DOE is proposing in today’s notice to 

amend energy conservation standards 

for conventional cooking appliances by 

eliminating standing pilot ignition 

systems. 

b. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

new or amended standards for covered 

products and equipment.131 As 

indicated above, any new or amended 

standard for either of the two appliance 

products must be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)), although EPCA 

precludes DOE from adopting any 

standard that would not result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, DOE 

may not prescribe a standard: (1) for 

certain products, if no test procedure 

has been established for the product; or 

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the 

standard is not technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(3)) The Act (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) also provides that, in 

deciding whether a standard is 

economically justified, DOE must, after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, weighing seven 

factors as described in section II.B of the 

preamble. EPCA directs DOE to 

undertake energy conversation 

standards rulemakings for cooking 

products and CCWs according to the 

schedules established in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(h)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

6313(e)(2)(A)(i), respectively. 

c. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

Through market research, interviews 

with manufacturers of all sizes, and 

discussions with trade groups, DOE was 

able to identify two small businesses 

that manufacture conventional cooking 

appliances which would be affected by 

today’s rule. 

d. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

Potential impacts on all 

manufacturers of conventional cooking 

appliances vary by TSL. Margins for all 

businesses could be impacted negatively 

by the adoption of any TSL, since all 

manufacturers have expressed an 

inability to pass on cost increases to 

retailers and consumers. The two small 

domestic businesses under discussion 

differ from their competitors in that they 

are focused cooking appliance 

manufacturers, not diversified appliance 

manufacturers. Therefore, any rule 

affecting products manufactured by 

these small businesses will impact them 

disproportionately because of their size 

and their focus on cooking appliances. 

However, due to the low number of 

competitors that agreed to be 

interviewed, DOE was not able to 

characterize this industry segment with 

a separate cash-flow analysis due to 

concerns about maintaining 

confidentiality and uncertainty 

regarding the quantitative impact on 

revenues of a standing pilot ban. 

At TSL 1 for gas ovens and gas 

cooktops, the elimination of standing 

pilot lights would eliminate one of the 

niches that these two small businesses 

serve in the cooking appliance industry. 

Both businesses also manufacture ovens 

and cooktops with electronic ignition 

systems, but the ignition source would 

no longer be a differentiator within the 

industry as it is today. The result would 

be a potential loss of market share since 

consumers would be able to choose 

from a wider variety of competitors, all 

of which operate at much higher 

production scales. 

For all other TSLs concerning 

conventional cooking appliances (which 

are not being considered in today’s 

rule), the impact on small, focused 

business entities would be 

proportionately greater than for their 

competitors since these businesses lack 

the scale to afford significant R&D 

expenses, capital expansion budgets, 

and other resources when compared to 

larger entities. The exact extent to 

which smaller entities would be 

affected, however, is hard to gauge since 

manufacturers did not respond to 

questions regarding all investment 

requirements by TSL during interviews. 

Notwithstanding this limitation, 

research associated with the LVM and 

other small entities in prior rulemakings 

suggests that many costs associated with 

complying with rulemakings are fixed, 

regardless of production volume. 

Since all domestic manufacturers 

already manufacture all of their 

conventional cooking appliances with 

electronic ignition modules as a 

standard feature or as an option for 

consumers, the cost of converting the 

remaining three domestic manufacturers 

exclusively to electronic ignition 

modules would be modest. However, 

given their focus and scale, any 

conventional cooking appliance rule 

would affect these two domestic small 

businesses disproportionately compared 

to their larger and more diversified 

competitor. 

e. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

with Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

today. 

f. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

In today’s rule, the only TSL under 

consideration for conventional cooking 

appliances is the elimination of 

standing pilot ignition systems for gas 

ovens and gas cooktops. All 

manufacturers of such appliances with 

standing pilot systems stated during 

interviews that there are no known 

alternatives on the market today that 

would allow their appliances to meet 

safety standards (such as ANSI Z21.1), 

while not using a line-powered ignition 

system or standing pilots. While batterypowered ignition systems have found 

application in a few cooking products 

such as the outdoor gas barbeque 

market, none of such systems have yet 

to find application in or approval for 

indoor cooking appliances. During an 

MIA interview, one manufacturer 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62130 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

expressed doubt that any third-party 

supplier would develop such a solution, 

given the small, and shrinking market 

that standing pilot-equipped ranges 

represent. Another manufacturer stated, 

however, that while the market share of 

gas cooking products with standing 

pilot ignition systems has been 

declining, a substantial market is still 

served by such appliances. DOE 

research suggests that battery-powered 

ignition systems could be incorporated 

by manufacturers at a modest cost if 

manufacturer’s market research 

suggested that a substantial number of 

consumers found such a product 

attribute important. DOE notes that such 

systems have been incorporated 

successfully in a range of related 

appliances, such as instantaneous water 

heaters. Further, DOE believes that there 

is nothing in the applicable safety 

standards that would prohibit such 

ignition systems from being 

implemented on gas cooking products. 

Therefore, DOE believes that 

households that use gas for cooking and 

are without electricity will likely have 

technological options that would enable 

them to continue to use gas cooking if 

standing pilot ignition systems are 

eliminated. 

In addition to the TSL being 

considered, the TSD associated with 

this proposed rule includes a report 

referred to in section VI.A in the 

preamble as the regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) (discussed earlier in this 

report and in detail in chapter 17 of the 

TSD). For conventional cooking 

appliances, this report discusses the 

following policy alternatives: (1) No 

standard, (2) consumer rebates, (3) 

consumer tax credits, (4) manufacturer 

tax credits, and (5) early replacement. 

With the exception of consumer rebates, 

the energy savings of these regulatory 

alternatives are at least three times 

smaller than those expected from the 

standard levels under consideration. 

The economic impacts mirror these 

regulatory alternatives. 

The conventional cooking appliance 

industry is very competitive. The two 

small businesses differentiate their 

products from most larger competitors 

by offering their products in nontraditional sizes and with standing pilot 

ignition systems. Three primary 

consumer groups purchasing standing 

pilot-equipped products were identified 

by manufacturers in their MIA 

interviews: (1) Consumers without line 

power near the range (or in the house); 

(2) consumers who prefer appliances 

without line power for religious reasons; 

and (3) consumers seeking the lowest 

initial appliance cost. Manufacturers 

could not identify the size of the 

respective market segments, but 

demographics suggest that initial price 

is the primary reason that consumers are 

opting for standing pilot-equipped 

ranges. Religious subgroups that eschew 

line power and homes without line 

power cannot alone explain why up to 

18 percent of gas cooking appliances are 

bought with standing pilot ignition 

systems. Furthermore, all manufacturers 

already make gas ranges with electronic 

ignition, including the high-volume 

domestic manufacturer of conventional 

cooking appliances with standing pilots. 

Thus, the primary benefit of standing 

pilot ignition systems appears to be that 

some differentiation from most highervolume competitors. While the actual 

revenue benefit is hard to quantify, one 

small business manufacturer stated 

during interviews that the company 

would expect to experience material 

economic harm if standing pilot ignition 

systems were eliminated. 

Due to the low number of small 

business respondents to DOE inquiries 

and the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impact of TSL 1 on small 

conventional cooking appliance 

manufacturers, DOE was not able to 

conduct a separate small business 

impact analysis. DOE continues to seek 

input from businesses that would be 

affected by the elimination of standing 

pilot ignition systems and will still 

consider this trial level for the purpose 

of the NOPR. 

As mentioned above, the other policy 

alternatives (no standard, consumer 

rebates, consumer tax credits, 

manufacturer tax credits, and early 

replacement) are described in section 

VI.A of the preamble and in the 

regulatory impact analysis (chapter 17 

of the TSD accompanying this notice). 

Since the impacts of these policy 

alternatives are lower than the impacts 

described above for the proposed 

standard levels, DOE expects that the 

impacts to small manufacturers would 

also be less than the impacts described 

above for the proposed standard level. 

DOE requests comment on the impacts 

to small business manufacturers for 

these and any other possible alternatives 

to the proposed rule for these 

manufacturers. DOE will consider any 

comments received regarding impacts to 

small business manufacturers for all the 

alternatives identified (including those 

in the RIA,) when preparing the final 

rule. 

2. Microwave Ovens 

The microwave oven industry 

consists of eight manufacturers with a 

market share larger than two percent. 

Most are large, foreign companies that 

import microwave ovens into the United 

States. There are two U.S. facilities that 

partially assemble microwave ovens. 

Both of these facilities are owned by 

large appliance manufacturers. None of 

the microwave oven manufacturers falls 

into any small business category. Thus, 

DOE did not address the microwave 

oven industry further in the small 

business analysis. 

3. Commercial Clothes Washers 

The CCW industry consists of three 

principal competitors that make up 

almost 100 percent of the market share. 

Two of them are diversified appliance 

manufacturers, while the third is a 

focused laundry equipment 

manufacturer. Before issuing this notice 

of proposed rulemaking, DOE 

interviewed all CCW manufacturers. 

Since all CCW manufacturers also make 

RCWs, DOE also considered whether a 

CCW manufacturer could be considered 

a small business entity in that industry. 

None of the CCW manufacturers fall 

into any small business category. Thus, 

DOE did not address the CCW industry 

further in the small business analysis. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information by a Federal 

agency, including a requirement to 

maintain records, unless the collection 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii)(V)) This 

rulemaking imposes no new information 

or recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, Office of Management and 

Budget clearance is not required under 

the PRA. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) of the 

impacts of the proposed rule pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR part 

1021). This assessment includes an 

examination of the potential effects of 

emission reductions likely to result from 

the rule in the context of global climate 

change, as well as other types of 

environmental impacts. The draft EA 

has been incorporated into the TSD; the 

environmental impact analyses are 

contained primarily in Chapter 16 of 

that document. Before issuing a final 

rule for residential cooking products 

and CCWs, DOE will consider public 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62131 

comments and, as appropriate, 

determine whether to issue a finding of 

no significant impact as part of a final 

EA or to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) for this 

rulemaking. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined today’s proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d) and 6316(b)(2)(D)) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996)) 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

DOE reviewed this regulatory action 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), which requires each Federal 

agency to assess the effects of Federal 

regulatory actions on State, local and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. For a proposed regulatory action 

likely to result in a rule that may cause 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector of $100 million or 

more in any one year (adjusted for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

an agency to publish a written statement 

assessing the costs, benefits, and other 

effects of the rule on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA (62 FR 

12820) (also available at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). Although today’s 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal intergovernmental mandate, it 

may impose expenditures of $100 

million or more on the private sector. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an 

agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the notice of proposed rulemaking and 

the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ 

section of the TSD for this proposed rule 

respond to those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

DOE is required to select from those 

alternatives the most cost-effective and 

least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule 

unless DOE publishes an explanation 

for doing otherwise or the selection of 

such an alternative is inconsistent with 

law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(h) 

and (o), 6313(e), and 6316(a), today’s 

proposed rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for residential 

cooking products and CCWs that are 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for today’s 

proposed rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

would require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62132 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

this notice under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), Office of Management and 

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action would not 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy 

and, therefore, is not a significant 

energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology (OSTP), issued its 

‘‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review’’ (the Bulletin), which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 14, 2005. 70 FR 2664. The 

Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemakings analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information.’’ The 

Bulletin defines ‘‘influential scientific 

information’’ as ‘‘scientific information 

the agency reasonably can determine 

will have, or does have, a clear and 

substantial impact on important public 

policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70 

FR 2664, 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation process using 

objective criteria and qualified and 

independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/ 

business merit, the actual or anticipated 

results, and the productivity and 

management effectiveness of programs 

and/or projects. The ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report’’ dated February 

2007 has been disseminated and is 

available at the following Web site: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

DOE will hold a public meeting on 

Thursday, November 13, 2008, from 9 

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

public meeting will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend the 

public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE of 

this fact as soon as possible by 

contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards to 

initiate the necessary procedures. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to 

Speak 

Any person who has an interest in 

this notice, or who is a representative of 

a group or class of persons that has an 

interest in these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation. Such persons may handdeliver requests to speak, along with a 

compact disc (CD) in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format to the address shown in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice of proposed rulemaking 

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Requests may also be sent by 

mail or e-mail to: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons scheduled to be heard 

to submit an advance copy of their 

statements at least two weeks before the 

public meeting. At its discretion, DOE 

may permit any person who cannot 

supply an advance copy of their 

statement to participate, if that person 

has made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Program. The request to 

give an oral presentation should ask for 

such alternative arrangements. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and 

section 336 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6306. A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the public meeting. After 

the public meeting, interested parties 

may submit further comments on the 

proceedings as well as on any aspect of 

the rulemaking until the end of the 

comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for presentations by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

prepared general statement (within time 

limits determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62133 

permit other participants to comment 

briefly on any general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

DOE will make the entire record of 

this proposed rulemaking, including the 

transcript from the public meeting, 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Any person may buy a copy of the 

transcript from the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the proposed rule 

before or after the public meeting, but 

no later than the date provided at the 

beginning of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Information submitted 

should be identified by docket number 

EE–2006–STD–0127 and/or RIN 1904– 

AB49. Comments, data, and information 

submitted to DOE’s e-mail address for 

this rulemaking should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

text (ASCII) file format. Stakeholders 

should avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, wherever possible, comments 

should carry the electronic signature of 

the author. Comments, data, and 

information submitted to DOE via mail 

or hand delivery/courier should include 

one signed original paper copy. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: One copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments and views of 

interested parties concerning: 

(1) The proposed standards for 

residential gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens, microwave ovens, and CCWs, as 

well as the proposed ‘‘no-standard’’ 

standard for residential electric kitchen 

ranges and ovens other than microwave 

ovens; 

(2) Whether battery-powered spark 

ignition modules are a viable alternative 

to standing pilots for manufacturers of 

gas ranges, ovens, and cooktops; 

(3) The preliminary determination of 

the technical infeasibility of 

incorporating microwave oven cooking 

efficiency with standby mode and off 

mode power into a single metric for the 

purpose of developing energy 

conservation standards; 

(4) Input and data regarding off mode 

power for microwave ovens; 

(5) Input and data on the utility 

provided by specific features that 

contribute to microwave oven standby 

power. In particular, DOE seeks 

information on the utility of display 

technologies, as well as on cooking 

sensors that do not require standby 

power; 

(6) Input and data on control 

strategies available to allow 

manufacturers to make design tradeoffs 

between incorporating standby-powerconsuming features such as displays or 

cooking sensors and including a 

function to turn power off to these 

components during standby mode. DOE 

also seeks comment on the viability and 

cost of microwave oven control board 

circuitry that could accommodate 

transistors to switch off cooking sensors 

and displays; 

(7) Whether switching or similar 

modern power supplies can operate 

successfully inside a microwave oven 

and the associated efficiency impacts on 

standby power; 

(8) The selection of microwave oven 

standby standard levels for the 

engineering analysis; 

(9) Input and data on the estimated 

incremental manufacturing costs, as 

well as the assumed approaches to 

achieve each standby level for 

microwave ovens. DOE also seeks 

comment on whether any intellectual 

property or patent infringement issues 

are associated with the design options 

presented in the TSD to achieve each 

standby level; 

(10) Input and data on the estimated 

market share of microwave ovens at 

different standby power consumption 

levels; 

(11) The appropriateness of using 

other discount rates in addition to seven 

percent and three percent real to 

discount future emissions reductions; 

and 

(12) The determination of the 

anticipated environmental impacts of 

the proposed rule, particularly with 

respect to the methods for valuing the 

expected CO2 and NOX emissions 

savings due to the proposed standards. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

29, 2008. 

John F. Mizroch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, chapter II, subchapter D, of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 430 and 431 are 

proposed to be amended to read as set 

forth below: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3
62134 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

2. Section 430.23 of subpart B is 

amended by revising paragraph (i)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(3) The standby power for microwave 

ovens shall be determined according to 

3.2.4 of appendix I to this subpart. The 

standby power shall be rounded off to 

the nearest 0.1 watt. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 430.32 of subpart C is 

amended by revising paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(j) Cooking Products. (1) Gas cooking 

products with an electrical supply cord 

shall not be equipped with a constant 

burning pilot light. This standard is 

effective on January 1, 1990. 

(2) Gas cooking products without an 

electrical supply cord shall not be 

equipped with a constant burning pilot 

light. This standard is effective on 

[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE 

Federal Register PUBLICATION]. 

(3) Microwave ovens shall have an 

average standby power not more than 

1.0 watt. This standard is effective on 

[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE 

Federal Register PUBLICATION]. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 430.62(a)(4) of subpart F is 

amended by redesignating paragraphs 

(a)(4)(xi) through (xvii) as (a)(4)(xii) 

through (xviii) respectively, and by 

adding new paragraph (a)(4)(xi) to read 

as follows: 

§ 430.62 Submission of data. 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(xi) Microwave ovens, the average 

standby power in watts. 

* * * * * 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

5. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

6. Section 431.156 of subpart I is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 431.156 Energy and water conservation 

standards and effective dates. 

Each commercial clothes washer 

manufactured on or after [DATE 3 

YEARS AFTER FINAL RULE Federal 

Register PUBLICATION], shall have a 

modified energy factor no less than and 

a water factor no greater than: 

Product class 

Modified 

energy factor 

(cu. ft./kWh/ 

cycle) 

Water factor 

(gal./cu. ft./ 

cycle) 

i. Top-Loading .................................................................................................................................................................. 1.76 8.3 

ii. Front-Loading ............................................................................................................................................................... 2.00 5.5 

[FR Doc. E8–23405 Filed 10–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0011] 

RIN: 1904—AB78 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedure 

for Microwave Ovens 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its test 

procedures for microwave ovens under 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

to provide for the measurement of 

standby mode and off mode power use 

by microwave ovens. The proposed 

amendments would incorporate into the 

DOE test procedure provisions from the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission’s Standard 62301, 

Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power, First 

Edition 2005–06, as well as language to 

clarify application of these provisions 

for measuring standby mode and off 

mode power in microwave ovens. The 

proposed amendments would also 

correct a technical error in the 

calculation of microwave test cooking 

energy output. DOE will hold a public 

meeting to discuss and receive 

comments on the issues presented in 

this notice. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than December 31, 2008. For details, see 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation’’, of this 

NOPR. 

DOE will hold a public meeting on 

Friday, November 14, 2008, from 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. DOE must 

receive requests to speak at the public 

meeting before 4 p.m., Friday, October 

31, 2008. DOE must receive a signed 

original and an electronic copy of 

statements to be given at the public 

meeting before 4 p.m., Friday, 

November 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. To attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to 

advance security screening procedures. 

Any foreign national wishing to 

participate in the meeting should advise 

DOE as soon as possible by contacting 

Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR on Test Procedures 

for Microwave Ovens, and provide the 

docket number EERE–2008–BT–TP– 

0011 and/or regulatory information 

number (RIN) 1904–AB78. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: MicroOven–2008–TP– 

0011@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2008–BT–TP–0011 

and/or RIN 1904–AB78 in the subject 

line of the message. 

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

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS3