Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
Federal RegisterDec 14, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AD15
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
AGENCY:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION:
Notification of proposed determination and request for comment.
SUMMARY:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer conventional cooking products. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notification of proposed determination (“NOPD”), DOE has initially determined that amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products would not be economically justified and would not result in a significant conservation of energy. DOE requests comment on this proposed determination and the associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting:
DOE will hold a webinar on Thursday, January 28, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments:
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before March 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, by any of the following methods:
(1)
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
(2)
Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the message.
(3)
Postal Mail:
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(4)
Hand Delivery/Courier:
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document.
Docket:
The docket, which includes
Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if one is held), comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
http://www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005.
The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for information on how to submit comments through
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
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. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
F. Other Issues
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Technology Options
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Product Testing and Reverse Engineering
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Efficiency Levels
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Incremental Efficiency Levels
c. Relationship Between IAEC and Oven Cavity Volume
3. Incremental Manufacturing Production Cost Estimates
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
4. Consumer Utility
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
3. Discussion of Comments
a. Discount Rate
b. Changes in Test Procedure and Manufacturer Interviews
c. Other Comments
4. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Premium Products Tend To Be Less Efficient
b. Induction Cooking Products
c. Product Utility
d. Testing and Certification Burdens
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
C. Proposed Determination
1. Technological Feasibility
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
3. Economic Justification
4. Summary of Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
Title III, Part B
1
of EPCA,
2
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer conventional cooking products, and specifically conventional cooking tops
3
and conventional ovens,
4
the subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
1
For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
2
All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
3
Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. This includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. (10 CFR 430.2)
4
Conventional oven means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of one or more compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. It does not include portable or countertop ovens which use electric resistance heating for the cooking or heating of food and are designed for an electrical supply of approximately 120 volts. This includes any conventional oven(s) component of a combined cooking product. (10 CFR 430.2)
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Pursuant to the 6-year look-back provision, DOE proposed energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. 80 FR 33030 (June 10, 2015); 81 FR 60784 (Sep. 2, 2016). Based on additional analysis and review of comments received, DOE is publishing this proposed determination that establishing new and amended standards for conventional cooking products, including conventional cooking tops, is not needed because standards would not be economically justified and would not result in a significant conservation of energy.
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed consumer conventional cooking products, including those subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2).
DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy efficient consumer conventional cooking products. For those consumer conventional cooking products for which DOE determined higher standards to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings that would result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting a national impacts analysis (“NIA”). DOE then evaluated whether higher standards would be economically justified pursuant to the seven factors specified in EPCA.
Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards for consumer conventional cooking products do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for consumer conventional cooking products.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer conventional cooking products, and specifically consumer conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for consumer conventional cooking products were established in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix I (“appendix I”). However, as discussed further in section III.B of this document, the test procedures for the conventional cooking products that are the subject of this proposed determination have been withdrawn.
Federal energy conservation standards for covered products generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional cooking products. In prescribing new or amended standards for covered products DOE must consider, among other things, the opportunity for energy savings, as well as the potential costs to consumers, and impacts on consumer choice. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from imposition of the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from imposition of the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class), or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies 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))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) Although DOE currently does not have test procedures for consumer conventional cooking products,
5
previous versions of appendix I addressed standby mode and off mode energy use. In the absence of a test procedure, in this analysis DOE considers energy use as measured under the previous test procedure appendix I in its determination of whether energy conservation standards need to be amended.
5
See
85 FR 50757 (August 18, 2020).
DOE must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based on consideration of whether amended standards will result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, as discussed above, any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product 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) Among the factors DOE considers in evaluating whether a proposed level is economically justified includes whether the proposed standard at that level is cost effective, as defined under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost-effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))
DOE is publishing this NOPD in satisfaction of the requirements under EPCA.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (“April 2009 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products (
i.e.,
gas cooking products both with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. DOE's regulations, codified at 10 CFR 430.2, define conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens as categories of cooking products. As noted in the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE specified conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens as separate categories of cooking products, and noted that any cooking top or oven standard would apply to the individual components of a conventional range. 74 FR 16040, 16053.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (“NAECA”), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)) NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent or additional standards were justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2))
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a final rule on September 8, 1998, which found that no standards were justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. 63 FR 48038. In addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating at that time that elimination of standing pilots for conventional gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord was economically justified, DOE did not include amended standards for conventional gas cooking products in the final rule. 63 FR 48038, 48039-48040. For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published the April 2009 Final Rule amending the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning pilots for all gas cooking products (
i.e.,
gas cooking products both with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. DOE decided to not adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of conventional electric cooking products because it determined that such standards would not be technologically feasible and economically justified at that time. 74 FR 16040, 16085.
6
6
As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE decided not to adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of microwave ovens. DOE also published a final rule on June 17, 2013 adopting energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 36316. DOE is not considering energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as part of this rulemaking.
As noted, EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notification of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) On February 12, 2014, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) notice (the “February 2014 RFI”) to initiate the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA. 79 FR 8337. As part of the RFI, DOE sought input from the public to assist with its determination on whether new or amended standards pertaining to consumer conventional cooking products are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 8339. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether new or amended standards would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (the “June 2015 NOPR”) proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. The June 2015 NOPR also announced that a public meeting would be held on July 14, 2015 at DOE headquarters in Washington, DC At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the NOPR, and interested parties that participated in the public meeting discussed a variety of topics. As part of the June 2015 NOPR, DOE also noted that it was deferring its decision regarding whether to adopt amended energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops, pending further study. 80 FR 33030, 33038-33040.
Prior to the June 2015 NOPR, DOE issued two notices requesting comment on the test procedures for cooking products. In both the test procedure NOPR published on January 30, 2013 (78 FR 6232, the “January 2013 TP NOPR”) and the supplemental test procedure NOPR published on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71894, the “December 2014 TP SNOPR”), DOE proposed amendments to the cooking products test procedure in appendix I that would allow for the testing of active mode energy consumption of induction cooking tops. After reviewing public comments on the December 2014 TP SNOPR, conducting further discussions with manufacturers, and performing additional analyses, DOE decided that further study was required before an updated cooking top test procedure could be established that produces test results which measure energy use during a representative average use cycle for all types of cooking tops, is repeatable and reproducible, and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. 80 FR 37954 (July 2, 2015) (“July 2015 TP Final Rule”). Test procedures for cooking tops were again proposed, as
discussed in section III.B of this document, in an SNOPR on August 22, 2016. (81 FR 57374, the “August 2016 TP SNOPR”). Subsequently a final rule was published on December 16, 2016 (the “December 2016 TP Final Rule”) adopting amended test procedures for conventional cooking tops that include, among other things, test methods for induction cooking tops and gas cooking tops with high burner input rates. 81 FR 91418. This rule was subsequently withdrawn on August 18, 2020 as a result of a petition from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”). As discussed in more detail in section III.B of this document, DOE withdrew the December 2016 TP Final Rule because it could not be certain that the results of the conventional cooking tops test procedure were accurate.
On September 2, 2016, prior to the now withdrawn test procedure amendments being adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule, DOE published in the
Federal Register
an SNOPR (the “September 2016 SNOPR”) proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops based on the amendments to the test procedure as proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784. In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE also revised its proposal from the June 2015 NOPR for conventional ovens from a performance-based standard to a prescriptive standard given that DOE had proposed to repeal the test procedure for conventional ovens in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60793-60794. (The repeal of the test procedure for conventional ovens is discussed in greater detail in section III.B of this document.) In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received a number of comments from interested parties and considered these comments in preparing this NOPD. The commenters are summarized in Table II-1. Relevant comments, and DOE's responses, are provided in the appropriate sections of this document.
EP14DE20.000
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
7
7
The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to consider energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005
). The references are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. This NOPD addresses issues raised by these commenters.
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
As discussed in section II.A of this document, 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10) of EPCA covers kitchen ranges and ovens, or “cooking products.” DOE's regulations define “cooking products” as consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units
8
and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 430.2.
8
The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking tops and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating elements for electric cooking tops.
DOE defines a combined cooking product as a household cooking appliance that combines a conventional cooking top and/or conventional oven with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include another cooking product. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I) In this analysis, DOE is not treating combined cooking products as a distinct product category and is not basing its product classes on such a category. Instead, DOE is evaluating energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens separately. Because combined cooking products consist, in part, of a cooking top and/or oven, the cooking top and oven standards would continue to apply to the individual components of the combined cooking product.
As part of the 2009 standards rulemaking for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE did not consider energy conservation standards for consumer conventional gas cooking products with higher burner input rates, including products marketed as “commercial-style” or “professional-style,” due to a lack of available data for determining efficiency characteristics of those products. DOE considered such products to be gas cooking tops with burner input rates greater than 14,000 British thermal units per hour (“Btu/h”) and gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also stated that the DOE cooking products test procedures at that time may not adequately measure performance of gas cooking tops and ovens with higher burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007).
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively planned to consider energy conservation standards for all consumer conventional cooking products, including commercial-style gas cooking products with higher burner input rates. In addition, DOE stated that it may consider developing test procedures for these products and determine whether separate product classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337, 8340 (Feb. 12, 2014).
As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE amended the conventional cooking top test procedure in appendix I to, in part, measure the energy use of commercial-style gas cooking tops with high burner input rates. See 81 FR 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016). However, on August 18, 2020, as a result of a petition from AHAM and data received in response to that petition, DOE withdrew the conventional cooking top test procedure in appendix I after determining that it was not representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle and was overly burdensome to conduct. 85 FR 50757 (“August 2020 TP Final Rule”). DOE also repealed the conventional oven test procedure in the December 2016 TP Final Rule. See 81 FR 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016). In the absence of Federal test procedures to measure the energy use or energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens, DOE is evaluating prescriptive design requirements for the control system of conventional electric smooth element cooking tops and conventional ovens, including commercial-style ovens with higher burner input rates. DOE would maintain the existing prescriptive design requirements for all conventional gas cooking products, noting that the current definitions for “conventional cooking top” and “conventional oven” in 10 CFR 430.2 already cover commercial-style gas cooking products with higher burner input rates, as these products are household cooking appliances with surface units or compartments intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of a gas flame. As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is not proposing a separate product class for gas cooking tops and ovens with higher burner input rates that are marketed as “commercial-style” and, as a result, DOE is not proposing separate definitions for these products.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) DOE will finalize a test procedure establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards at least 180 days prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Section 8(d) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (“Process Rule”).
DOE established test procedures in a final rule published in the
Federal Register
on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised its test procedures for cooking products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy use, and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A reduction in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the number of self-clean oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of portions of International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) Standard 705-1988, “Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens for household and similar purposes,” and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing of
microwave ovens.
Id.
The test procedures for consumer conventional cooking products established provisions for determining estimated annual operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor (defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total annual energy input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. These provisions for consumer conventional cooking products were not used for compliance with any energy conservation standards because the standards to date have been design requirements; in addition, there is no EnergyGuide
9
labeling program for cooking products.
9
For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program, see:
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html.
DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (
i.e.,
fan-only mode) testing provisions, for consumer conventional cooking products. DOE published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the “October 2012 TP Final Rule”), adopting standby and off mode provisions that satisfied the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off mode power in its test procedures for residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
The January 2013 TP NOPR proposed amendments to appendix I that would allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of induction cooking products;
i.e.,
conventional cooking tops equipped with induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the cooking top. DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking tops by amending the definition of “conventional cooking top” to include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid aluminum test blocks specified at that time in the test procedure for cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an aluminum body and a stainless-steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30, 2013).
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE modified its proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR in response to comments from interested parties to specify different test equipment that would allow for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops, and would include an additional test block size for electric surface units with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance). 79 FR 71894. In addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction cooking tops.
Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to add a larger test block size to test gas cooking top burners with higher input rates.
Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 3, 2014). DOE published the July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the test procedure amendments discussed above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR 37954.
As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR for conventional ovens, DOE received a significant number of comments raising issues with the repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR and in separate interviews conducted with consumer conventional cooking product manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). A number of manufacturers that produce and sell products in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test method and harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2, “Household electric appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for measuring performance”
10
(“IEC Standard 60350-2”) for measuring the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. These manufacturers stated that the test methods in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all electric cooking top types, specify additional cookware diameters to account for the variety of surface unit sizes on the market, and use test loads that represent real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency advocates also recommended that DOE require water-heating test methods to produce a measure of cooking efficiency for conventional cooking tops that is more representative of actual cooking performance than the hybrid test block method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). For these reasons, DOE decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040 (June 10, 2015).
10
Hob is the British English term for cooking top.
DOE published the August 2016 TP SNOPR that proposed amendments to the test procedures for conventional cooking tops. Given the feedback from interested parties discussed above and based on the additional testing and analysis conducted for the test procedure rulemaking, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, DOE proposed to amend its test procedure to incorporate by reference the relevant sections of European Standard EN 60350-2:2013 “Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance”
11
(“EN 60350-2:2013”), which provide a water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. The test method specifies the quantity of water to be heated in a standardized test vessel whose size is selected based on the diameter of the surface unit under test. The test vessels specified in EN 60350-2:2013 are compatible with all cooking top technologies and surface unit diameters available on the U.S. market. 81 FR 57374, 57381-57384.
11
The test methods in EN 60350-2:2013 are based on the same test methods in the draft version of IEC 60350-2 available at the time of the December 2016 TP Final Rule. As noted in that final rule, based on the few comments received during the development of the draft, DOE expected that the IEC procedure, once finalized, would retain the same basic test method as contained in EN 60350-2:2013. 81 FR 91418, 91421 (Dec. 16, 2016).
DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in EN 60530-2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including input rates that exceed 14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In addition, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include methods for both electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual energy consumption (“AEC”) and integrated annual energy consumption (“IAEC”) to account for the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR 57374, 57387-57388.
In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal the conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the conventional oven test procedure may not accurately represent consumer use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.
For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE evaluated its proposed energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops based on the proposed cooking top test procedure discussed above. 81 FR 60784, 60797 (Sept. 2, 2016). For conventional ovens, due to the uncertainties in analyzing a performance-based standard using oven testing provisions that DOE proposed to remove from the test procedure, as discussed above, DOE proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR prescriptive design requirements for the control system of conventional ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60794.
AHAM, AGA and APGA opposed consideration of proposed standards in the absence of a final test procedure, stating that the technological feasibility and economic justification of proposed standards can only be evaluated with a finalized test procedure. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 1-2; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2) AHAM, AGA and APGA asserted that 42 U.S.C. 6295(r) requires that test procedures are finalized in a sufficient period of time before energy conservation standards are proposed. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 1-2; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2) AHAM, AGA and APGA also argued that DOE has not followed section 7 of the then-current Process Improvement Rule, which stated that needed modifications to test procedures will be identified in consultation with experts and interested parties early in the screening stage of the standards development process and any necessary modifications will be proposed before issuance of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANOPR”) in the standards process. In addition, these commenters stated that the then-current Process Improvement Rule specified that final modified test procedures will be issued prior to the NOPR on proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 2-3; AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 2)
AHAM, AGA and APGA asserted that, even with the 30-day extension, the comment period for the September 2016 SNOPR was inadequate for industry to analyze and provide meaningful comment on the impacts of the proposed standards given the uncertainty in the test procedure. AHAM added that it was particularly difficult to comment on the proposed standards because manufacturers do not regularly conduct energy tests because there is not a standard that requires them to do so. (AHAM, No. 52 at pp. 3-4; AHAM, No. 64 at p. 3; AGA and APGA, No. 68 at pp. 1-2)
AHAM reiterated the list of issues with the test procedure presented in its comments on the August 2016 TP SNOPR
12
concerning the repeatability and reproducibility of tests results. AHAM urged DOE to issue a notice of data availability and/or supplemental proposed test procedure with a 30- to 60-day comment period to address AHAM's comments on the test procedure. AHAM added that DOE should finalize the test procedure before proposing standards, and provide 180 days after finalizing the test procedure before closing the comment period on a proposed standard to provide sufficient time for manufacturers to test enough models to evaluate the potential impact of proposed standards. AHAM stated that if DOE does not, however, issue an additional SNOPR on the proposed standard, DOE should at minimum explain how any additional changes to the test procedure impact the proposed standards and provide interested parties with an additional 60 days to comment on the proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 5-6; AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 1, 3-4) AHAM also commented that if DOE proceeds with standards for cooking tops using the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE should adjust the tolerance for enforcement from 5 percent to 20 percent, consistent with the variation in test results observed in AHAM's round robin test program. (AHAM, No 64 at p. 21)
12
AHAM's comment on the August 2016 TP SNOPR is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013-0030.
Sub-Zero similarly commented that the proposed test procedure produces significant variation in test results and, thus, it is not feasible to adopt standards for conventional cooking tops. Sub-Zero commented that DOE should work with industry to develop a test procedure that produces repeatable and reproducible results. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 1) AGA and APGA also commented that adding what it stated is a complicated and unproven test procedure for gas cooking tops does not appear to be warranted for the testing and verification burden that would be placed on the industry, as well as the consumers that will pay for the added cost of testing and compliance. (AGA and APGA, No. 68 at p. 3)
On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule repealing the test procedures for conventional ovens for the reasons discussed above, and adopting the test procedure amendments for conventional cooking tops proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, with the following modifications:
• Aligning the test methods for electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones (also referred to as multi-ring surface units) with the provisions in EN 60350-2:2013;
13
13
EN 60350-2:2013 requires testing of the largest measured diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test vessel category is needed to meet the test vessel selection requirements in EN 60350-2:2013. In that case, one of the smaller-diameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit may be tested if it fulfills the test vessel category requirement.
• Clarifying the simmering temperature requirements, temperature sensor requirements, and surface unit diameter measurement; and
• Maintaining the existing installation requirements in appendix I. 81 FR 91418.
The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.,
provides among other things, that “[e]ach agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a petition from AHAM requesting that DOE reconsider its December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its petition, AHAM requested that DOE undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the test procedure for conventional cooking tops, while maintaining the repeal of the oven test procedure that was part of the Final Rule. In the interim, AHAM sought an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the December 2016 TP Final Rule, including the requirement that manufacturers use the final test procedure to make energy-related claims. In its petition, AHAM claimed that its analyses showed that the test procedure is not representative for gas cooking tops and, for gas and electric cooking tops, has such a high level of variation it will not produce accurate results for certification and enforcement purposes and will not assist consumers in making purchasing decisions based on energy efficiency. DOE published AHAM's petition on April 25, 2018, and requested comments and information on whether DOE should undertake a rulemaking to consider the proposal contained in the petition. 80 FR 17944.
On August 9, 2019, DOE published a NOPR (“the August 2019 TP NOPR”) proposing to withdraw the test procedure for conventional cooking tops after evaluating new information and data produced by AHAM and other interested parties that suggested that the test procedure yields inconsistent results that are indicative of the test not being representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle. As such, DOE determined that it would be unduly burdensome to subject those manufacturers seeking to make
representations as to the efficiency of their products to the requirement to conduct such tests while DOE investigated the issues presented. 84 FR 39211.
On August 18, 2020, DOE published the August 2020 TP Final Rule withdrawing the test procedure for conventional cooking tops. 85 FR 50757. Testing conducted by DOE and outside parties using the test procedure yielded inconsistent results. 85 FR 50757, 50763. DOE had not identified the cause of the inconsistencies, and noted that its data to date is limited.
Id.
DOE concluded, therefore, that the test procedure was not representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle.
Id.
DOE also determined that it would be unduly burdensome to leave the test procedure in place and require cooking top tests to be conducted using that test method without further study to resolve those inconsistencies.
Id.
Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must include, where applicable, test procedures prescribed in accordance with the test procedure provisions of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) As discussed previously, DOE repealed the conventional cooking top and conventional oven test procedures and is evaluating new prescriptive design requirements for the control system of conventional ovens and conventional electric smooth cooking tops, while proposing to maintain the existing prescriptive design requirements for conventional gas ovens and conventional gas cooking tops. As a result, the prescriptive design requirements would not require manufacturers to test using the DOE test procedure for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens to certify products.
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(iv) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for consumer conventional cooking products, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this proposed determination. For further details on the screening analysis for this proposed determination, see chapter 4 of the technical support document (“TSD”)
14
for this NOPD.
14
The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, in this analysis it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for consumer conventional cooking products, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described in section IV.C of this proposed determination and in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to consumer conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the potential standards (2023-2052).
15
The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards.
15
Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPD are described in section V.A of this document. DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential new or amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
i.e.,
coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
16
DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
16
The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
2. Significance of Savings
In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) The term “significant” is not defined in EPCA. DOE has established a significance threshold for energy savings. Section 6(b) of the now-current Process Rule. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE conducts a two-step approach that considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold and a threshold that is
a percent reduction in the covered product energy use.
Id.
DOE first evaluates the projected energy savings from a max-tech standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quadrillion British thermal units (“quads”) of site energy threshold. Section 6(b)(2) of the now-current Process Rule. If the 0.3 quads-threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech savings to the total energy usage of the covered equipment to calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. If this comparison does not yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year period, DOE proposes that no significant energy savings would likely result from setting new or amended standards. Section 6(b)(4) of the now-current Process Rule. The two-step approach allows DOE to ascertain whether a potential standard satisfies EPCA's significant energy savings requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to ensure that DOE avoids setting a standard that “will not result in significant conservation of energy.”
EPCA defines “energy efficiency” as the ratio of the useful output of services from a consumer product to the
energy use
of such product, measured according to the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(5),
emphasis added
) EPCA defines “energy use” as the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, as measured by the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further, EPCA uses a household energy consumption metric as a threshold for setting standards for new covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)) Given this context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric for evaluating the significance of energy savings.
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted above, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed determination.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”), as discussed in section IV.I of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) the industry net present value (“INPV”), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in life-cycle cost (“LCC”) and simple payback period (“PBP”) associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value (“NPV”) of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards considered in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of consumer conventional cooking products.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the
nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) In the event DOE were to propose amended standards, DOE would transmit a copy of the proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE would then publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. Currently, DOE is not proposing to amend the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products so there is no proposed rule to submit to the Attorney General for review.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
In evaluating the need for national energy conservation, DOE expects that energy savings from amended standards would likely provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. Energy savings from amended standards also would likely result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases primarily associated with fossil-fuel based energy production. Consistent with its past approach,
17
because DOE has initially concluded amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products would not result in significant energy savings and would not be economically justified, DOE did not conduct a utility impact analysis or emissions analysis for this document.
17
See 81 FR 71325 (Oct. 17, 2016); see also 84 FR 17626 (Dec. 27, 2019).
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this document.
F. Other Issues
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, the SoCal IOUs and the Joint Commenters supported performance-based standards for conventional cooking tops, stating that the August 2016 TP SNOPR proposed test methods to fully capture energy consumption for these products. (SoCal IOUs, No. 67 at p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 70 at p. 1) Due to the repeal of the testing requirements for conventional cooking tops in the August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE did not evaluate performance-based standards in this document.
The Joint Commenters opposed prescriptive standards for the power supply of conventional cooking tops. The Joint Commenters stated that while switch-mode power supplies (“SMPS”) are generally more efficient than linear power supplies, the standby power consumption of cooking tops with SMPS is not necessarily lower than that of cooking tops with linear power supplies based on DOE's test sample. The Joint Commenters also commented that a prescriptive standard that only required cooking tops to be equipped with a SMPS would eliminate significant energy savings from the proposed performance-based standard level that included energy savings from the automatic power-down design option for electric smooth cooking tops. (Joint Commenters, No. 70 at p. 2)
GE commented that for the proposed standard for electric smooth cooking tops, which corresponds to the automatic power-down technology option, the estimated standby power of 0.25 Watts (“W”) is unrepresentative of products available on the market and that none of its models would meet this level. AHAM and GE commented that DOE based the reduction in standby power consumption on a stand-alone cooking top, not a combined cooking product such as a range. AHAM and GE added that, according to the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, combined cooking products must include standby energy from the other components. According to AHAM and GE, the energy savings estimated by DOE are not achievable when accounting for the standby power consumption of a combined cooking product and would result in a loss of consumer utility because manufacturers would have to remove the clock function to meet the low standby power consumption levels. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 10; GE, No. 72 at p. 2)
As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE observed in its testing that the standby power for electric smooth cooking tops without an automatic power-down feature was similar among the units in its test sample, which included both stand-alone cooking tops and cooking tops in combined cooking products. Furthermore, DOE observed an electric smooth cooking top that implements an automatic power-down feature. The automatic power-down design option achieves very low standby power levels (approximately 0.25 W) by turning off most of the power-consuming components on the control board once a period of user inactivity has elapsed. DOE determined through product teardowns that the power supply requirements for all of the electric smooth cooking tops in its test sample are similar, including those in the unit that implements the automatic power-down feature. As a result, DOE identified no technical barrier to implementing this design option to power down most of the power-consuming components on the control board in any of its sample units and, therefore, concludes that similar levels of energy savings due to standby power improvements can be achieved for all electric smooth cooking tops. However, DOE also recognizes that a standby power level associated with the automatic power-down technology option may not be achievable while powering the continuous clock display typically used in combined cooking products, such as ranges. Therefore, as discussed in section V.A of this document, DOE evaluated prescriptive design standards in this NOPD for electric smooth cooking tops that would allow for a continuous clock display,
and accordingly, would not require the elimination of clocks from products.
AGA and APGA commented that the proposed standards in the September 2016 SNOPR for conventional gas cooking tops and ovens would produce little real energy savings. In particular, AGA and APGA opposed DOE's proposal for gas cooking tops to eliminate the current prescriptive standard prohibiting constant burning pilot lights and replace it with a performance standard because the test procedure had not yet been finalized or vetted by industry. AGA and APGA asserted that the limited testing conducted by DOE was not adequate given the concerns about the test procedure. (AGA and APGA, No. 68 at pp. 3, 4)
The SoCal IOUs supported DOE's analysis and proposed standards, with the exception of those for gas cooking tops. The SoCal IOUs stated that under TSL 2, 26.1 percent of gas cooking top consumers would be adversely impacted and have an average payback period of 19.7 years. The SoCal IOUs recommended adopting TSL 2, with the exception of specifying standards at the baseline efficiency level for gas cooking tops. According to the SoCal IOUs, this approach would result in a fractional reduction in national energy savings of 0.06 quads. (SoCal IOUs, No. 67 at p. 3)
As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE withdrew the testing provisions for conventional cooking tops in the August 2020 TP Final Rule and, therefore, is not evaluating performance standards for conventional cooking tops, including gas cooking tops, in this NOPD.
Spire commented that the higher efficiency of induction cooking tops, being technologically feasible and economically justified, obligates DOE to mandate their use for electric cooking products. (Spire, No. 61 at p. 4) As discussed in section V.C.3 of this document, DOE has initially determined that the electric smooth cooking top efficiency level associated with induction heating is not economically justified.
AHAM stated that, based on its comments regarding improved contact conductance (discussed in section IV.A.2.a of this document), the additional testing conducted by AHAM members (discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document), and the estimated 19 percent of consumers that would experience a net cost at DOE's proposed standard level, DOE's proposed standard for electric coil cooking tops would not achieve actual energy savings in the field and could eliminate these products from the market. AHAM opposed standards for electric coil cooking tops and recommended that DOE maintain the “no standard” standard for this product class. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 20) As discussed in section IV.A.2.a of this document, DOE is no longer considering improved contact conductance as a technology option. In addition, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of this document, DOE updated its efficiency levels to account for the additional data submitted by AHAM. Based on these revisions to the analysis for this NOPD, DOE is not evaluating standards for electric coil cooking tops, as discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document.
The CA IOUs submitted a test report from their testing of gas and electric ovens. The CA IOUs noted that their test sample included a range of manufacturers, cavity sizes, and cooking modes. The CA IOUs conducted testing to evaluate pre-heating, steady-state (temperature) operation, broiling, and self-cleaning. In addition, the CA IOUs conducted testing according to the previous version of the test procedure. The CA IOUs asserted, based on their test results, that energy consumption was correlated to a number of factors, including: Cavity size, insulation, oven input rate, and whether the product was commercial-style. The CA IOUs noted that convection mode did not have a clear correlation to cooking efficiency, but most ovens had a higher efficiency in convection mode. The CA IOUs also noted that their test results did not show a correlation between energy consumption and retail price. (CA IOUs, No. 59) DOE appreciates the test data submitted by the CA IOUs. As discussed in section IV.C.2.c of this document, DOE similarly determined that conventional oven energy consumption was related to the oven cavity volume and developed relationships between IAEC and oven cavity volume. As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE repealed the test procedures for conventional ovens. DOE, therefore, evaluated potential standards based on prescriptive design options for conventional ovens for this NOPD, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of this document.
Spire stated that a number of DOE's assumptions disadvantage cooking products that use natural gas. (Spire, No. 61 at p. 7) Spire identified DOE's assumptions with regard to the discount rate, marginal energy costs, appliance lifetimes, installation costs, and incremental maintenance costs, as resulting in the bias. DOE notes generally that it based its analysis on all available data for both gas and electric conventional cooking products, much of which was submitted by appliance manufacturers. DOE conducts its analysis to accurately represent, to the extent possible, the manufacture and consumer usage in the United States of both gas and electric conventional cooking products.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this proposed determination with regard to consumer conventional cooking products. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of potential energy conservation standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet tool that provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of consumer conventional cooking products. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional cooking tops based on energy source (
i.e.,
gas or electric). These distinctions initially yielded two conventional cooking product classes: (1) Gas cooking tops and (2) electric cooking tops. For electric cooking tops, DOE determined that the ease of cleaning smooth elements provides enhanced consumer utility over coil elements. Because smooth elements typically use more energy than coil elements, DOE defined two separate product classes for electric cooking tops. DOE defined the following product classes for consumer conventional cooking tops in the April 2009 Final Rule TSD (“2009 TSD”):
18
18
The TSD from the previous residential cooking products standards rulemaking is available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0127-0097.
• Electric cooking tops—low or high wattage open (coil) elements;
• Electric cooking tops—smooth elements; and
• Gas cooking tops—conventional burners.
Induction Heating
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed to maintain the product classes for conventional cooking tops from the previous standards rulemaking, as presented above. DOE also proposed to consider induction heating as a technology option for electric smooth cooking tops rather than as a separate product class. DOE noted that induction heating provides the same basic function of cooking or heating food as heating by gas flame or electric resistance, and that the installation options available to consumers are also the same for both cooking products with induction and with electric resistance heating. In addition, in considering whether there are any performance-related features that justify a higher energy use standard to establish a separate product class, DOE noted in the September 2016 SNOPR that the utility of speed of cooking, ease of cleaning, and requirements for specific cookware for induction cooking tops do not appear to be uniquely associated with higher energy use compared to other smooth cooking tops with electric resistance heating elements. 81 FR 60784, 60800-60801 (Sept. 2, 2016).
The SoCal IOUs supported DOE's analysis conducted for induction cooking tops and DOE's decision to consider induction heating as a technology option for electric smooth cooking tops rather than a separate product class because induction heating provides the same utility for electric smooth cooking tops as does electric resistance heating. (SoCal IOUs, No. 67 at pp. 3-4) AHAM agreed with DOE's determination that the ease of cleaning smooth elements is a consumer utility that justifies a separate product class from electric coil cooking tops. However, AHAM stated that it does not currently have enough information to support or oppose DOE's proposal to consider induction heating as a technology option for electric smooth cooking tops rather than as a separate product class. AHAM expressed concern whether the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR for cooking tops would accurately measure the differences in energy use between induction and other smooth element cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 5)
As discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE withdrew the test procedure for conventional cooking tops in the August 2020 TP Final Rule. However, as discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document, DOE determined that its testing using the water-heating method previously adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule provided measures of energy consumption that represent the energy use of both smooth-electric resistance and smooth-induction cooking tops with relative accuracy. For the reasons presented in the September 2016 SNOPR and discussed above, DOE is maintaining consideration of induction cooking tops as a technology option for electric smooth cooking tops and not as a separate product class.
Commercial-Style Cooking Tops
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas cooking tops available on the market, DOE determined for the September 2016 SNOPR that products marketed as commercial-style cannot be distinguished from standard residential-style products based on performance characteristics or consumer utility. While conventional gas cooking tops marketed as commercial-style have more than one burner rated above 14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates, approximately 50 percent of cooking top models marketed as residential-style also have one or more burners rated above 14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered whether separate product classes for commercial-style gas cooking tops with higher burner input rates are warranted by comparing the test energy consumption of individual surface units in a sample of cooking tops tested by DOE. For the September 2016 SNOPR analysis, DOE conducted testing of gas surface units in a sample of twelve gas cooking tops, which included six products marketed as commercial-style, and determined that there was no statistically significant correlation between burner input rate and the ratio of surface unit energy consumption to test load mass
19
for cooking tops marketed as either residential-style or commercial-style. DOE noted that its testing showed that this efficiency ratio for gas cooking tops is more closely related to burner and grate design rather than input rate. 81 FR 60784, 60801-60802 (Sept. 2, 2016).
19
Because the mass of the test load depends on the input rate of the burner, the test energy consumption must be normalized for comparison. The higher the ratio of test energy consumption to test load mass, the less efficient the surface unit.
DOE recognized in the September 2016 SNOPR that the presence of certain features, such as heavy cast iron grates and multiple high input rate burners, may help consumers perceive a difference between commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking top performance. However, DOE stated that it was not aware of clearly-defined and consistent design differences and corresponding utility provided by commercial-style gas cooking tops as compared to residential-style gas cooking tops. 81 FR 60784, 60803 (Sept. 2, 2016). Although DOE's testing indicated there is a difference in energy consumption between residential-style and commercial-style gas cooking tops, this difference could not be correlated to any specific utility provided to consumers. Moreover, DOE stated that is not aware of an industry test standard that evaluates cooking performance and that would quantify the utility provided by these products.
Id.
For these reasons, DOE did not propose in the September 2016 SNOPR to establish a separate product class for gas cooking tops marketed as commercial-style or conventional gas cooking tops with higher burner input
rates. 81 FR 60784, 60803 (Sept. 2, 2016).
AHAM stated that, due to the length of the comment period and the limited resources that could be dedicated to testing, it did not have enough information to support or oppose DOE's proposal to not define a separate product class for commercial-style cooking tops. Moreover, AHAM commented that because of its concerns that the test procedure does not produce repeatable and reproducible results and concerns with using a test procedure designed for electric cooking tops to measure gas cooking top energy use, it could not determine whether test results are accurate or assess whether separate product classes are warranted. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 6)
Sub-Zero and Felix Storch both urged DOE to establish separate product classes for commercial-style cooking tops. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 2; Felix Storch, No. 62 at p. 1) Sub-Zero stated that high-performance
20
gas cooking tops include design features that enhance cooking performance (rapid boiling, precision simmering, and even heat distribution) while adhering to safety requirements, but that negatively impact efficiency as compared to conventional residential-style cooking tops. According to Sub-Zero, gas burner design attributes such as safety, performance, and efficiency are systematic, and that a change to one attribute significantly affects the others. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp. 2, 4-5) The design features associated with high-performance gas cooking tops and the utility that Sub-Zero and Miele claimed these features provide include:
20
Sub-Zero stated that “high performance” cooking is a better descriptor of this segment than “commercial-style” or “professional-style.”
• High input rate burners with large diameters provide faster heat up times and allow consumers to use larger professional cooking vessels while maintaining even heat distribution (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 5);
• High input rate burners with high levels of flame controllability, specifically high turndown ratios, allow for both simmering of foods such as chocolates and sauces and faster heat up times (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 5);
• Greater spacing between the gas flame, grate, and cooking vessel is required for high input rate burners than for low input rate burners to meet performance and safety requirements, specifically even heat distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide (“CO”). Reducing the spacing between the gas flame and the cooking vessel can increase efficiency, but flame quenching due to flame impingement and contact with the grate/cooking vessel can lead to increased CO emissions and combustion by-products. Designing high performance products with safe combustion gases provides an inherent constraint to the efficiency level that can be attained (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp. 5-6);
• Heavy cast iron grates allow for better heat distribution to cooking vessels while also providing the strength required to support large loads and increased product longevity. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 6) Heavier cast iron grates also retain more heat once the burner is turned down during simmer or shut off. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 2; Sub-Zero, No. 66 at pp. 5-6)
Sub-Zero commented that the features listed above deliver superior performance by allowing consumers to use a wider range of cooking methods that differ significantly from how the average consumer uses a consumer conventional cooking product. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 2) Sub-Zero also commented that high performance cooking tops typically employ a range of burner inputs to allow consumers the ability to cook foods that require searing on one burner and foods that require melting temperatures on another burner. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 4) Miele provided similar comments as Sub-Zero regarding the features that distinguish cooking methods used with commercial-style cooking tops compared to residential-style cooking tops, such as the added mass and heat retention of the grates for improved temperature controllability. (Miele, No. 60 at pp. 1-2) Both Sub-Zero and Miele stated that their consumers often sauté at very high burner outputs, manipulate the pans to mix the ingredients like professional chefs, flame the contents, and keep most, if not all, the burners in the cooking top firing together when cooking. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 2; Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 2) Miele added that commercial-style models may be equipped with specialty burners such as a grill or griddle, not covered in the proposed standards, that are used by consumers together with the adjoining regular burners. Miele stated that the heat generated by specialty burners is not captured in the test procedure but could potentially provide a significant amount of heat energy to the adjoining grates prior to the ignition and use of the adjoining burners. Furthermore, Miele claimed that the vigorous actions of professional-style cooking require the support structure of the heavy grates typical of commercial-style cooking tops. (Miele, No. 60 at p. 1)
Sub-Zero suggested that DOE establish a separate product class for residential gas cooking tops that have an average burner input rate of at least 14,000 Btu/h and a grate mass of at least 4 pounds per burner. Sub-Zero claimed that its suggested product class definition was based on its research of product marketing, utility, and performance of residential gas cooking products. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 3)
Based on DOE's testing, including the additional testing conducted for this NOPD and discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document, DOE did not identify a correlation between measured energy consumption of conventional gas cooking products and any specific utility provided to consumers. While DOE recognizes the presence of certain commercial-style features described by manufacturers may allow consumers to cook with a wide variety of cooking methods, manufacturers have not provided consumer usage data demonstrating that consumers of commercial-style cooking tops and residential-style cooking tops employ significantly different cooking methods during a typical cooking cycle. Moreover, manufacturers have not provided evidence that consumers of commercial-style cooking tops would use more burners on a cooking top during a single cooking cycle than consumers of residential-style cooking tops. DOE notes that there are many residential-style cooking tops with one to two high input rate burners and continuous cast iron grates that provide consumers with the ability to sear food at high temperatures and simmer at low temperatures.
For these reasons, DOE is not evaluating a separate product class for gas cooking tops marketed as commercial-style or conventional gas cooking tops with higher burner input rates. However, as discussed in section IV.C.3.a of this document, DOE conducted its engineering analysis consistent with products currently available on the market and is not evaluating amendments to the current prescriptive standards for gas cooking tops; this will maintain the features available in conventional cooking tops marketed as commercial-style (
e.g.,
multiple high input rate burners, cast iron gates,
etc.
) that may be used to differentiate these products in the marketplace. In addition, the standards considered in this proposed determination are the same as those currently in effect and thus would not alter the safety of existing commercial-style gas cooking tops in terms of combustion products or emissions.
b. Conventional Ovens
During the first energy conservation standards rulemaking for cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional ovens based on energy source (
i.e.,
gas or electric). These distinctions initially yielded two conventional oven product classes: (1) Gas ovens and (2) electric ovens. DOE more recently determined that the type of oven-cleaning system is a utility feature that affects performance. DOE found that standard ovens and ovens using a catalytic continuous-cleaning process use roughly the same amount of energy. On the other hand, self-clean ovens use a pyrolytic process that provides enhanced consumer utility with lower overall energy consumption as compared to either standard or catalytically lined ovens. Therefore, in the April 2009 Final Rule analysis described in the 2009 TSD, DOE defined the following product classes for conventional ovens:
• Electric ovens—standard oven with or without a catalytic line;
• Electric ovens—self-clean oven;
• Gas ovens—standard oven with or without a catalytic line; and
• Gas ovens—self-clean oven.
Self-Cleaning Technology
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas ovens available on the U.S. market, and on manufacturer interviews and testing conducted as part of the engineering analysis, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR that the self-cleaning function of a self-clean oven may employ methods other than a high-temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning action.
21
80 FR 33030, 33043 (June 10, 2015). DOE clarified that a conventional self-clean electric or gas oven is an oven that has a user-selectable mode separate from the normal baking mode, not intended to heat or cook food, which is dedicated to cleaning and removing cooking deposits from the oven cavity walls.
Id.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is not aware of any differences in consumer behavior in terms of the frequency of use of the self-clean function that would be predicated on the type of self-cleaning technology rather than on cleaning habits or cooking usage patterns that are not dependent on the type of technology. As a result, DOE did not consider establishing separate product classes based on the type of self-cleaning technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE did not receive any comments on the September 2016 SNOPR regarding product classes for different self-cleaning technologies. As a result, for the reasons discussed previously, DOE is not considering separate product classes based on the type of self-cleaning technology.
21
DOE noted that it is aware of a type of self-cleaning oven that uses a proprietary oven coating and water to perform a self-clean cycle with a shorter duration and at a significantly lower temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for these ovens, unlike catalytically-lined standard ovens that provide continuous cleaning during normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning mode that is user-selectable.
Commercial-Style Ovens
With regard to gas oven burner input rates, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR that based on its review of the consumer conventional gas ovens available on the market, residential-style gas ovens typically have an input rate of 16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h, whereas residential gas ovens marketed as commercial-style typically have burner input rates ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.
22
80 FR 33030, 33043 (June 10, 2015). Additional review of both the residential-style and commercial-style gas oven cavities indicated that there is significant overlap in oven cavity volume between the two oven types. Standard residential-style gas oven cavity volumes range from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet (“ft
3
”) and gas ovens marketed as commercial-style have cavity volumes ranging from 3.0 to 6.0 ft
3
. Sixty percent of the commercial-style models surveyed had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft
3
, while fifty percent of the standard models had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft
3
. The primary differentiating factor between the two oven types was burner input rate, which is greater than 22,500 Btu/h for commercial-style gas ovens.
Id.
22
However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, while marketed as commercial- or professional-style and having multiple surface units with high input rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input rate above 22,500 Btu/h.
DOE conducted testing for the June 2015 NOPR using the version of the test procedure later adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule to determine whether commercial-style gas ovens with higher burner input rates warrant establishing a separate product class. DOE evaluated the cooking efficiency of eight conventional gas ovens, including five ovens with burners rated at 18,000 Btu/h or less and the remaining three with burner input rates ranging from 27,000 Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/h. 80 FR 33030, 33043 (June 10, 2015). DOE's testing showed that the measured cooking efficiencies for ovens with burner input rates above 22,500 Btu/h were lower than for ovens with ratings below 22,500 Btu/h, even after normalizing cooking efficiency to a fixed cavity volume. DOE also noted that the conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates in its test sample were marketed as commercial-style and had greater total thermal mass, including heavier racks and thicker cavity walls, even after normalizing for cavity volume. DOE's testing of a 30,000 Btu/h oven suggested that much of the energy input to commercial-style ovens with higher burner input rates goes to heating the added mass of the cavity, rather than the test load, resulting in relatively lower measured efficiency when measured according to the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 80 FR 33030, 33043-33044. DOE also investigated the time it took each oven in the test sample to heat the test load to a final test temperature of 234 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”) above its initial temperature, as specified in the DOE test procedure in appendix I at the time of the testing. DOE's testing showed that gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h do not heat the test load significantly faster than the ovens with lower burner input rates, and two out of the three units with the higher burner input rates took longer than the average time to heat the test load. Therefore, DOE concluded in the June 2015 NOPR that there is no unique utility associated with faster cook times that is provided by gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 80 FR 33030, 33045.
Based on DOE's testing, reverse engineering, and additional discussions with manufacturers, DOE posited in the June 2015 NOPR that the major differentiation between conventional gas ovens with lower burner input rates and those with higher input rates, including those marketed as commercial-style, was design and construction related to aesthetics rather than improved cooking performance. Further, DOE did not identify any unique utility conferred by commercial-style gas ovens. For the reasons discussed above, DOE did not propose to establish a separate product class for commercial-style gas ovens with higher burner input rates. 80 FR 33030, 33045 (June 10, 2015).
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, to further address whether commercial-style ovens provide a unique utility that would warrant establishing a separate product class, DOE conducted additional interviews with manufacturers of commercial-style cooking products and reviewed additional commercial-style test data. While these data demonstrated a difference in energy consumption between residential-style and
commercial-style ovens when measured according to the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule, this difference could not be correlated to any specific utility provided to consumers. Moreover, DOE stated that it is not aware of an industry test standard that evaluates cooking performance and that would quantify the utility provided by these products. DOE also noted that all conventional ovens, regardless of whether or not the product is marketed as commercial-style, must meet the same safety standards for the construction of the oven. American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) Z21.1 “Household Cooking Gas Appliances” (“ANSI Z21.1”), Section 1.21.1, requires that the oven structure, and specifically the baking racks, have sufficient strength to sustain a load of up to 25 pounds depending on the width of the rack. A similar standard (Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”) 858 “Household Electric Ranges” (“UL 858”)) exists for electric ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60805-60806 (Sept. 2, 2016).
DOE also observed as part of the September 2016 SNOPR that many of the design features identified by manufacturers as unique to commercial-style ovens and that may impact the energy consumption, such as extension racks, convection fans, cooling fans, and hidden bake elements, are also found in residential-style products. DOE noted that the presence of these features, along with thicker oven cavity walls and higher burner input rates, may help consumers perceive a difference between commercial-style and residential-style ovens. However, DOE stated in the September 2016 SNOPR that it was not aware of a clearly-defined and consistent design difference and corresponding utility provided by commercial-style ovens as compared to residential-style ovens. For these reasons, DOE did not propose in the September 2016 SNOPR to establish a separate product class for commercial-style ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60806 (Sept. 2, 2016).
Sub-Zero supported a differentiation based on utility between high-performance ovens and residential-style ovens. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 2) However, Sub-Zero asserted there could potentially be confusion if DOE defines a high-performance product class for ovens in a future rulemaking but does not do so for gas cooking tops as part of the current rulemaking. Sub-Zero stated that since both components are incorporated in combined cooking products such as ranges, different product classes for different components could lead to significant market uncertainty. Sub-Zero stated that the only accurate and equitable solution is to define separate product classes for high-performance ovens and gas cooking tops and set appropriate standards based on utility and performance considerations. (Sub-Zero, No. 66 at p. 6)
Based on DOE's analysis discussed previously, DOE is not evaluating a separate product class for commercial-style ovens.
Installation Configuration
As discussed in section III.B of this document, in the October 2012 TP Final Rule, DOE amended appendix I to include methods for measuring fan-only mode.
23
Based on DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in, and slide-in conventional gas and electric ovens, DOE observed that all of the built-in and slide-in ovens tested consumed energy in fan-only mode, whereas freestanding ovens did not. The energy consumption in fan-only mode for built-in and slide-in ovens ranged from approximately 1.3 to 37.6 watt-hours (“Wh”) per cycle, which corresponds to 0.25 to 7.6 kilowatt-hours per year (“kWh/yr”). Based on DOE's reverse engineering analyses, DOE noted that built-in and slide-in products incorporate an additional exhaust fan and vent assembly that is not present in freestanding products. The additional energy required to exhaust air from the oven cavity is necessary for slide-in and built-in installation configurations to meet safety-related temperature requirements because the oven is enclosed in cabinetry. For these reasons, DOE proposed in the June 2015 NOPR and September 2016 SNOPR to include separate product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens. 80 FR 33030, 33045 (June 10, 2015); 81 FR 60784, 60806 (Sept. 2, 2016).
23
Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not user-selectable in which a fan circulates air internally or externally to the cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the heating function.
DOE did not receive comment on its proposal in the September 2016 SNOPR to include separate product classes for built-in/slide-in ovens. For the reasons discussed above, DOE analyzed separate product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens for this NOPD.
In summary, DOE analyzed the product classes listed in Table IV-1 for this NOPD.
EP14DE20.001
2. Technology Options
As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to improve energy efficiency. Initially, these technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD includes the detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified for this equipment.
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed to consider the technology options for conventional cooking tops listed in Table IV-2. 81 FR 60784, 60808 (Sept. 2, 2016).
EP14DE20.002
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received comments regarding the potential energy savings and applicability of the improved contact conductance and low-standby-loss electronic control technology options for conventional cooking tops. These specific technology options are discussed in the following sections.
25
24
Catalytic burners were included in the September 2016 SNOPR screening analysis, but not included in the table of technology options.
25
Previous comments and DOE's responses on the various cooking top technology options listed in Table IV-2 are discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60807-60808 (Sept. 2, 2016).
Improved Contact Conductance
AHAM opposed improved contact conductance as a technology option for electric coil cooking tops. AHAM commented that the test procedure specifies narrow tolerances on the flatness of the test vessel, which AHAM feels are appropriate to reduce variability in test results. AHAM stated that if a consumer does not use pots with comparable flatness, any reduction in energy consumption due to greater flatness of the heating element that would be measured using the test procedure will not be realized in the field. AHAM supplied data from testing of different pan diameters and materials showing that all pan materials warp after the first use, and the warping continues as the cookware is used.
26
Based on this testing, AHAM asserted that consumers are using warped pans and that improving the flatness of the heating element will not achieve improved contact conductance. AHAM stated, therefore, that the energy savings associated with the improved contact conductance technology option measured under the test procedure is not representative of what consumer will experience in the field and, as a result, this should not be considered as a technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 7-10)
26
AHAM test data showed that the average pan warpage ranged from -0.02 inches for aluminum pans to -0.08 inches for stainless steel pans.
DOE agrees that, based on the test data provided by AHAM, improving the flatness of the electric coil heating element may not result in energy savings due to the warping of pots and pans used by consumers. As a result, DOE did not consider improved contact conductance as a technology option for electric coil cooking tops for this NOPD.
Low-Standby-Loss Electronic Controls
AHAM commented that most baseline products on the market are already using a low-standby-loss SMPS and, as a result, this should not be considered a viable technology option to improve efficiency for electric smooth cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 10) Among the six electric smooth cooking tops that DOE tore down, DOE observed units that incorporated a baseline efficiency linear power supply. As a result, DOE maintained SMPS as a technology option for reducing the standby power consumption of electric smooth cooking tops for this NOPD.
Table IV-3 lists the technology options for cooking tops that DOE considered for this NOPD.
EP14DE20.003
b. Conventional Ovens
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed to consider the technology options for conventional ovens listed in Table IV-4. 81 FR 60784, 60808-60810 (Sept. 2, 2016).
EP14DE20.004
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received a number of comments regarding the potential energy savings and applicability of intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition systems, forced convection, improved insulation, improved door seals, oven separator, reduced conduction losses, and reduced vent rate, as technology options for conventional ovens. These specific technology options are discussed in the following sections.
27
27
Prevoius comments and DOE's responses on the various oven technology options listed in Table IV-4 are discussed in the June 2015 NOPR and September 2016 SNOPR. 80 FR 33030, 33046-33047 (June 10, 2015); 81 FR 60784, 60808-60810 (Sept. 2, 2016).
Intermittent/Interrupted Ignition or Intermittent Pilot Ignition System
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE conducted a review of ignition systems available on the market as well as various industry definitions for automatic gas ignition available in household gas appliances. DOE based its analysis on existing industry terminology such as definitions available in ANSI Z21.1 and ANSI Z21.20, “Automatic Electrical Controls for Household and Similar Use Part 2: Particular Requirements for Automatic Burner Ignition Systems and Components.” When a conventional gas oven cooking cycle is initiated, an ignition system is energized before gas is allowed to flow to the main burner to be lit. Ignition types observed on the market for conventional gas ovens fall under three categories: (1) Intermittent ignition, (2) intermittent/interrupted ignition, and (3) intermittent pilot ignition.
28
81 FR 60784, 60809 (Sept. 2, 2016).
28
Continuous ignition systems (
e.g.,
constant-burning or “standing” pilot), defined in ANSI Z21.1, were eliminated for all gas cooking products by the current standards as of April 9, 2012.
DOE noted in the September 2016 SNOPR that its testing showed that intermittent pilot ignition systems (
i.e.,
electronic spark ignition systems) reduce energy consumption as compared to intermittent glo-bar ignition systems. However, based on DOE's review of different ignition systems, DOE additionally determined that energy savings can be achieved from switching from the baseline intermittent glo-bar ignition system to either an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition. As a result, DOE expanded the gas ignition system technology option to account for both of these options. 81 FR
60784, 60809-60810 (Sept. 2, 2016). Because DOE proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR to adopt a prescriptive standard for the control system of conventional gas ovens to require the use of an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition, DOE also proposed to define “intermittent/interrupted ignition” and “intermittent pilot ignition” in 10 CFR 430.2. 81 FR 60784, 60810.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, Spire reiterated its April 14, 2014 comments
29
that its test data indicate that glo-bar ignition systems consume only 0.16 kWh per cycle. Spire claimed that this is equivalent to 160 W, which is no more than half of DOE's estimates. (Spire, No. 61 at pp. 5-6) DOE responded to these comments in the June 2015 NOPR by presenting test data on the glo-bar power and energy consumption from its test sample. DOE noted that while the power consumption of the glo-bar ignition systems was measured as 330 W to 450 W, the per-cycle energy consumption was similar to that reported by Spire, ranging from 0.141 to 0.261 kWh, because the glo-bar ignition systems do not stay on for the entire cooking cycle and instead cycle on and off as the main burner cycles on and off. 80 FR 33030, 33051 (June 10, 2015). DOE analyzed standards for conventional ovens using the IAEC metric, which includes the energy use from the glo-bar ignition system.
29
Spire, formerly the Laclede Group, Inc., April 14, 2014 comments are available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0008.
AHAM and GE questioned whether DOE's proposal to require gas ovens to be equipped with an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition would achieve energy savings. AHAM and GE noted that a glo-bar ignition system, which stays on when the main burner is on, contributes heat to the cavity and the food load. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 28; GE, No. 72 at p. 3) AHAM stated that unlike DOE's testing that compared two different models, one with a glo-bar ignition and one with an intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot system, AHAM members conducted testing by comparing the same model with two different ignition systems. AHAM member testing, presented in Table IV-5, showed that the units equipped with the glo-bar ignition system consumed less energy than the same models equipped with the intermittent pilot (
i.e.,
spark ignition) system. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 28-29)
EP14DE20.005
In addition, AHAM and GE presented data from testing of a single oven that was configured to switch between the glo-bar ignition system and the intermittent pilot ignition system. AHAM and GE noted that the testing, conducted according to the DOE test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule, showed that when replacing the glo-bar ignition system with spark ignition, the electrical energy consumed by the glo-bar is replaced by additional gas usage when using the intermittent pilot ignition system, and the overall energy use of both systems is essentially the same. Based on this, AHAM and GE asserted that replacing the glo-bar ignition system with an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition does not achieve energy savings. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 29-30; GE, No. 72 at p. 3)
Based on review of the additional test data provided by AHAM, DOE agrees that replacing the intermittent glo-bar ignition system with an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition may not achieve energy savings due to the elimination of heat input that the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and food load, which must be offset by additional gas consumption. As a result, DOE is no longer considering intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition systems as a technology option. Because DOE is no longer considering these ignition systems as technology options, DOE is not considering prescriptive standards to require that conventional gas ovens be equipped with a control system that uses intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition in this NOPD.
Instead, DOE is evaluating prescriptive standards requiring that conventional ovens not be equipped with a control system that uses a linear power supply. DOE's analysis revealed that conventional ovens at the baseline efficiency level use a conventional linear power supply control design. A linear power supply typically produces unregulated as well as regulated power. The main characteristic of an unregulated power supply is that its output may contain significant voltage ripple and that the output voltage will usually vary with the current drawn. The voltages produced by regulated power supplies are typically more stable, exhibiting less ripple than the output from an unregulated power supply and maintaining a relatively constant voltage within the specified current limits of the device(s) regulating the power. The unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically consists of a transformer that steps alternating current (“AC”) line voltage down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to direct current (“DC”) conversion, and a capacitor to produce unregulated, DC output. However, there are other means of producing and implementing an unregulated power supply such as
transformerless capacitive and/or resistive rectification circuits.
Within a linear power supply, the unregulated output serves as an input into a single or multiple voltage-regulating devices. Such regulating devices include Zener diodes, linear voltage regulators, or similar components which produce a lower-potential, regulated power output from a higher-potential DC input. This approach results in a rugged power supply which is reliable, but typically has an efficiency of about 40 percent. As discussed in section IV.C.2.b of this document, DOE's analysis showed that switching from a conventional linear power supply to an SMPS reduces the standby mode energy consumption for conventional ovens. An SMPS offers higher conversion efficiencies of up to 75 percent in appliance applications for power supply sizes similar to those of conventional ovens. An SMPS also reduces the no-load standby losses. DOE seeks comment on both its initial decision to no longer consider intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition systems as a technology option, and its initial decision to only evaluate prescriptive standards requiring that conventional ovens not be equipped with a control system that uses a linear power supply (see section VII.B of this document).
Forced Convection
AHAM commented that, depending on the total energy consumption of the unit, the convection motor wattage could negate any potential energy savings of forced convection. AHAM also asserted that convection is not appropriate for cooking all food types, such as covered food loads. AHAM commented that because DOE proposed to repeal the oven test procedure in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, there was no way to determine whether there are efficiency gains from this technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 11)
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE conducted testing on ovens equipped with forced convection, comparing the measured energy consumption of each oven in bake mode to the average energy consumption of bake mode and convection mode, including energy consumption due to the fan motor, as specified in the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. Based on this testing, DOE determined that forced convection provides a 4 to 6-percent increase in cooking efficiency. In addition, DOE notes that because the test procedure specified that the bake mode and convection mode energy consumption be averaged when calculating cooking efficiency, the test procedure did not assume that forced convection would be used for cooking all food loads. For these reasons, DOE retained forced convection as a technology option for this NOPD. However, as discussed in section III.B of this document, DOE repealed the test procedures for conventional ovens. DOE will reevaluate the energy savings associated with this technology option if it considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.
Improved Insulation
AHAM commented that DOE's estimate of the efficiency increase associated with improved insulation is based on data from the 1996 TSD.
30
AHAM also noted that added insulation would decrease the overall cavity size and reduce consumer utility. AHAM commented that DOE must conduct testing on products currently on the market using an active test procedure to determine the energy savings associated with these technology options. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 13) As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE noted that using denser insulation can increase cooking efficiency, and that self-clean ovens typically have a more effective insulation package to meet surface temperature safety requirements due to the higher temperatures during the self-cleaning operation. DOE observed from teardowns of products in its test sample that standard and self-clean ovens may use different density insulations. As a result, DOE believes that the efficiency of standard ovens can be increased by using improved insulation. For these reasons, DOE maintained improved insulation as a technology option for standard ovens for this NOPD, although as discussed in section IV.B.1.b of this document, DOE screened out added insulation from further analysis. DOE recognizes that the estimates for the energy savings may vary depending on the test procedure. DOE will reevaluate the energy savings associated with this technology option if it considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.
30
Available online at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0070-0053.
Improved Door Seals
AHAM commented that further improving door seals will lead to a loss of performance due to a loss of sufficient airflow. According to AHAM, door seals are already optimized to retain heat while offering enough airflow for cooking performance. AHAM stated that if the door is sealed further, increased airflow would be required by means of implementing an additional motor that would likely consume more energy, and the 1-percent energy gain DOE estimated would be eliminated. For these reasons, AHAM opposed considering improved door seals as a technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 11)
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this NOPD, DOE noted that because some venting is required for proper cooking performance, a complete seal on the oven is undesirable. However, the oven door seals can be improved further without sealing the oven completely. As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this NOPD, the estimated efficiency improvement for improving the door seals was based on replacing the baseline silicone rubber door seal that DOE observed in its test sample with the fiberglass door seals with metallic mesh typically found in self-clean ovens and that DOE also observed in its test sample. As a result, DOE initially concludes that efficiency can be increased by improving the door seals and retained this technology option for this NOPD.
Oven Separator
AHAM opposed considering oven separators as a technology option. AHAM commented that oven separators are not a widely available feature and that DOE does not have data to show the frequency with which consumers actually use the oven separator. AHAM stated that without knowing whether consumers use the oven separator, it is not possible to determine the energy savings that would be realized in the field. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 11) DOE notes that the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule specified that the total AEC of an oven equipped with an oven separator be calculated as the average energy. As discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE's testing showed that oven separators can reduce energy use by reducing the cavity volume that must be heated. 81 FR 60784, 60818. Because oven separators have the potential to reduce energy use for conventional electric ovens, DOE retained this technology option for this NOPD.
Reduced Conduction Losses
AHAM commented that DOE's data on reduced conduction losses are based on products that are more than 10 years old. AHAM noted that testing at the time indicated an extremely small absolute percentage point increase in efficiency of 0.05 percent, and that DOE does not have any current data to evaluate the efficiency improvement for products currently on the market.
(AHAM, No. 64 at p. 12) Based on DOE's testing and reverse engineering for this proposed determination, DOE did not observe variation in the interface between the door and the oven cavity that would demonstrate an opportunity for improving efficiency. As a result, DOE did not consider reduced conduction losses as a technology option in this NOPD.
Reduced Vent Rate
AHAM opposed considering reduced vent rate as a technology option. AHAM commented that DOE's estimates of energy savings rely on old testing and product designs, and that the negligible energy savings are based on a test procedure that DOE proposed to repeal in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. According to AHAM, any future energy savings may not be captured if the test procedure is changed. AHAM also commented that oven vent rates are part of a complex air flow design that affects preheat times, cooking performance, and fire and explosion safety performance. AHAM asserted that forcing manufacturers to implement this technology option would reduce energy use by a negligible amount while forcing a significant redesign effort. AHAM added that this could also lead to the elimination of self-clean ovens or cause poor cooking performance because it would result in low air flow and the development of hots spots in the cavity. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 12)
DOE notes that it proposed to consider reduced vent rate as a technology option for only electric standard ovens, and that no further increase in efficiency can be achieved for gas and electric self-clean ovens and gas standard ovens with this technology option. In addition, because DOE did not consider reduced vent rate for gas ovens, DOE does not believe that fire and explosion safety performance from gas combustion would be an issue. As noted in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE observed from its testing that reduced vent rate could be considered for improving the cooking efficiency for electric standard ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60810 (Sept. 2, 2016). As a result, DOE retained reduced vent rate as a technology option for electric standard ovens in this NOPD.
Table IV-6 lists the technology options for ovens that DOE considered for this NOPD.
EP14DE20.006
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1)
Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.
(2)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.
(3)
Impacts on product utility or product availability.
If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.
(4)
Adverse impacts on health or safety.
If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.
(5)
Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies.
If a design option uses proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b)
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed below.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
For conventional cooking tops, in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened out radiant gas burners, catalytic burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces. 81 FR 60784, 60810-60811 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE did not receive any comments opposing the technology options screened out in the September 2016 SNOPR. For the same reasons discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE is continuing to screen out radiant gas burners, catalytic burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces from further analysis in this NOPD.
In addition, AHAM commented that halogen heating elements are not being used in any commercially available products or working prototypes. AHAM also noted that DOE's estimated energy savings using the previous version of the test procedure are no longer relevant. AHAM asserted that halogen
heating elements should be screened out from the analysis. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 10) Based on DOE's review of products available on the market and its product teardowns, DOE is not aware of any cooking tops that incorporate halogen heating elements. Because this technology is currently not being used commercially or in working prototypes, DOE does not believe that it would be practicable to produce this technology in commercial products on the scale necessary to serve the market by the potential compliance date of the proposed standards. As a result, DOE is screening out halogen elements from further analysis in this NOPD.
AHAM commented that the optimized burner and grate design technology option for gas cooking tops should be screened out from the analysis. AHAM stated that designs of the burner system components are interdependent and must consider safety as well. According to AHAM, gas cooking top burner and grate designs are already optimized to meet consumer utility and to stay within combustion safety requirements. AHAM also asserted that the additional heat retention of heavier grates contributes to the efficiency of longer cooking cycles that are not measured under the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 6)
As discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered different efficiency levels associated with the optimized burner and grate design technology option that it observed in products available on the market, including a range of commercial-style gas cooking tops that maintain the utilities discussed previously in section IV.A.1.a of this document. 81 FR 60784, 60187 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE characterized the optimized burner and grate design incremental efficiency levels based on different observed features (
e.g.,
high input rate burners, grate types and material). DOE further notes that all gas cooking tops on the market, including those with an optimized burner and grate design, have been certified to applicable safety standards. However, DOE recognizes that the estimates for the energy savings associated with optimized burner and grate design may vary depending on the test procedure, and thus screened out this technology option from further analysis of gas cooking tops. DOE will reevaluate the energy savings associated with this technology option if it considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.
b. Conventional Ovens
For conventional ovens, in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity design. 81 FR 60784, 60811 (Sept. 2, 2016).
AHAM supported DOE's proposal to screen out optimized burner and cavity design as well as no oven door window from the analysis. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 12, 13) Because DOE did not receive any comments opposing the technology options screened out in the September 2016 SNOPR, for the same reasons discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE screened out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity design from further analysis in this NOPD.
2. Remaining Technologies
Based on the screening analysis, DOE considered the design options listed in Table IV-7 for conventional cooking tops and Table IV-8 for conventional ovens.
EP14DE20.007
EP14DE20.008
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (
i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety, nor require unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the TSD for this NOPD.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of conventional cooking products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (
i.e.,
the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (
i.e.,
the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses (
i.e.,
the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) Relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (
i.e.,
the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (
i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the “max-tech” level (particularly in cases where the “max-tech” level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).
In this rulemaking, DOE is adopting a design-option approach, supplemented by reverse engineering (physical teardowns and testing of existing products in the market) to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design option combination. In addition, DOE considered data from the previous rulemaking analysis provided in the 2009 TSD. DOE also conducted interviews with manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of design options used to increase product efficiency, and their associated manufacturing costs.
DOE conducted testing and reverse engineering teardowns on products available on the market. Because there are no performance-based energy conservation standards or energy reporting requirements for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on performance-related features and technologies advertised in product literature.
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
As noted in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE's test sample for conventional cooking tops included four gas cooking tops, eight gas ranges, six electric cooking tops, and two electric ranges for a total of 20 conventional cooking tops covering all of the considered product classes. 81 FR 60784, 60811-60812 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE conducted testing on each cooking top in its test sample. DOE notes that it originally conducted testing using the withdrawn hybrid test block method proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR. DOE also tested nine of the twenty units in its test sample using the water heating test method adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule, which as discussed in section III.B of this document has since been withdrawn. To maintain its full test sample to be representative of products on the market, DOE then used the relative difference in results between the two test methods to scale the normalized total cooking top energy consumption for the remaining units in its test sample.
DOE conducted physical teardowns on each test unit to develop a manufacturing cost model and to evaluate key design features. DOE supplemented its reverse engineering analyses by conducting manufacturer interviews to obtain feedback on efficiency levels, design options, inputs for the manufacturing cost model, and resulting manufacturing costs. DOE used the results from testing, reverse engineering, and manufacturer interviews to develop the efficiency levels and manufacturing costs discussed in section IV.C.2 and section IV.C.3 of this document.
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, AHAM requested information on which of the IAECs for units in DOE's test sample were measured using the methods proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR and which IAECs were calculated using scaling factors derived from the results of testing using the hybrid test block method proposed in the December 2014 TP SNOPR. AHAM also requested that DOE provide the scaling factors for each scaled unit in the test sample. (AHAM, No. 57 at p. 2) On October 24, 2016, DOE added to the rulemaking docket the information requested by AHAM, which included: (1) The IAECs for the units tested according to the August 2016 TP SNOPR, (2) the IAECs for the units tested according to the withdrawn hybrid test block method, and (3) the scaling factor used to scale results obtained with the hybrid test block method.
31
31
Available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0058.
AHAM did not agree with DOE's method to scale results using the difference between products tested with both the hybrid block and water-heating test procedures. AHAM did not believe that DOE had enough data to understand how different cooking top configurations affect the scaling factor, and as such asserted that DOE should not develop a scaling factor. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 14-15) AHAM noted that the hybrid test block method specified three different test load diameters, while the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR specified eight different test load diameters. Additionally, AHAM claimed that due to the variety of cooking top configurations and surface unit diameters that were available on the U.S. market, a single scaling factor for any cooking top product class would not be meaningful. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 14)
AHAM specifically noted that the scaling factors used for the smooth-electric resistance cooking tops were calculated using units that contained multi-ring elements. AHAM also stated that because “zone-less” smooth-induction cooking tops (
i.e.,
those with full-surface induction) were tested differently than “zoned” smooth-induction cooking tops (
i.e.,
those with individual surface units)—the test load sizes were based on the number of controls rather than the diameter of each of the surface units—it was inappropriate to use a scaling factor developed using zoned cooking tops for zone-less cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 14-15) Furthermore, for gas cooking tops, AHAM stated that because DOE's test sample contained cooking tops with unique burner/grate designs that had an impact on the efficiency of the product, it was inappropriate to apply the same scaling factor to all of the gas models in the DOE test sample. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 16)
AHAM noted that DOE tested less than half of the cooking tops in its test
sample according to the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, and as a result, based the standards for conventional cooking tops proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR on test data for only nine products. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 14) Moreover, AHAM stated that because the rulemaking started 3 years prior to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE relied on old samples for its analysis and that it was possible that products on the market at the time of AHAM's comments differed from the products on the market at the time DOE started its analysis. (AHAM, No. 64 at p. 14) AHAM also commented that the number of different product types in DOE's test sample was disproportionate to the percentage of shipments for each product type. AHAM noted that DOE tested only two smooth-electric resistance cooking tops and three electric coil cooking tops even though these product types represented a significant portion of the market. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 14, 16)
AHAM submitted test data for 8 electric coil cooking tops, 15 electric smooth cooking tops (11 electric resistance and 4 induction), and 10 gas cooking tops. AHAM's test results are presented in Table IV-9 to Table IV-11. The coefficient of variation in AHAM's test data ranges from 7.1 to 9.2 percent, depending on the product class. According to AHAM, this variation introduced uncertainty about whether or not a data point would meet the proposed standard level and made it difficult to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed standard. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 18, 20)
EP14DE20.009
EP14DE20.010
EP14DE20.011
DOE notes that for each of the electric cooking top product classes, it did not base the scaling factor on simply the overall AEC calculated according to each test method, because the difference in the overall AECs that were measured for each electric cooking top subject to the two test methods varied by more than 2 percentage points for some product classes. Instead, DOE scaled the measured results for each individual surface unit of each cooking top based on the heating technology of the surface unit (coil, smooth-electric resistance, and smooth-induction) and the surface unit diameter, accounting for any difference in the diameter of the test loads for each respective test method used to test the surface unit. The scaling factors presented in DOE's October 24, 2016 response to AHAM's data request thus are an average obtained from individually scaling four or more surface units per cooking top, and represent the aggregate difference between the overall AEC determined using each test method.
This scaling method for electric cooking tops allowed DOE to account for configuration differences among units in its test sample, including the presence of multi-ring surface units, and the effects of the test cookware selection process specified in the December 2016 TP Final Rule. Regarding the latter, for a given surface unit, the test vessel with a diameter that most closely matched the surface unit diameter was selected for the test. The number of test vessels and test vessel size categories
32
needed to assess the energy consumption of the cooking top was based on the number of controls that could be independently but simultaneously operated on the cooking top. If the number of independent controls/surface units for the cooking top exceeded two, the cooking top was required to be tested with test vessels from at least two cookware categories. As a result, the test vessel selected for testing an individual surface unit was based on the diameter of that surface unit as well as the configuration of diameters of all the surface units on the cooking top to ensure that the test vessel size category requirements were also met. Scaling test results for each individual surface unit ensured that DOE factored in this test procedure requirement.
32
Test vessels are grouped into categories based on ranges of test vessel diameters to represent different cookware types.
In contrast, for the gas cooking top test data that were scaled from the results using the hybrid test block method, DOE used the average difference in overall AEC between the two test methods to scale the test results because the test load selection process for gas cooking tops depended only on the input rate of each individual burner and did not depend on the configuration of all the burners on the cooking top. Thus, scaling by the percent difference in overall AEC instead of surface unit energy consumption was appropriate for gas cooking tops, as evidenced by the results for the three gas units in the DOE test sample that were tested according both test methods. For these three gas cooking tops, the percent difference in overall AEC varied less than 1 percentage point.
For these reasons, in this NOPD DOE maintained the same approach to scale test results measured with the hybrid test block method and updated the scaling factors to reflect the test procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule.
DOE's test sample of 20 consumer conventional cooking products that were used for the September 2016 SNOPR analysis, as well as being subjected to additional testing for this NOPD, comprised units purchased in 2014 and 2015. To supplement its analysis for this NOPD, DOE also purchased and tested two additional commercial-style gas cooking tops and one additional smooth-electric resistance cooking top. DOE has periodically reviewed the market throughout the course of the rulemaking and has determined that this test sample captures the range of features currently available on the market for each product class. The key characteristics and test results for all cooking top units in DOE's test sample are listed in Table IV-12 and Table IV-13.
EP14DE20.012
EP14DE20.013
For completeness, DOE supplemented its dataset by incorporating AHAM's test data, and considered this combined dataset in evaluating the efficiency levels, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of this document. The combined dataset significantly expands the number of models included in the engineering analysis and further ensures that the full range of energy consumption for products on the market is captured.
b. Conventional Ovens
As noted in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE's test sample for conventional ovens included 1 gas wall oven, 7 gas ranges, 5 electric wall ovens, and 2 electric ranges for a total of 15 conventional ovens covering all of the considered product classes. DOE conducted testing according to the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. 81 FR 60784, 60812 (Sept. 2, 2016). As discussed in section III.B of
this document, although DOE has since repealed the conventional oven test procedure in appendix I, DOE based its analyses on the data measured using that test procedure. Table IV-14 and Table IV-15 present the testing results maintained from the September 2016 SNOPR for the conventional gas and electric ovens, respectively. As with cooking tops, DOE used the results from testing, reverse engineering, and manufacturer interviews to develop the efficiency levels and manufacturing costs for conventional ovens discussed in section IV.C.2 and section IV.C.3 of this document.
EP14DE20.014
EP14DE20.015
2. Efficiency Levels
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
A baseline unit is a product that just meets current Federal energy conservation standards. DOE uses the baseline unit for comparison in several phases of the NOPD analyses, including the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy savings that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares energy use at each of the higher energy efficiency levels to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the consumer that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each higher efficiency level to the price of a unit at the baseline.
Conventional Cooking Tops
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE developed baseline efficiency levels by considering both data from the previous standards rulemaking and the energy use for the test units based on the water heating test procedure that was later adopted in the December 2016 TP Final Rule. 81 FR 60784, 60813-60814 (Sept. 2, 2016). DOE conducted testing for units in its test sample to measure IAEC, which included energy use in active mode and standby mode. DOE also requested energy use data as part of the manufacturer interviews. However, because manufacturers were not required at the time of the September 2016 SNOPR to conduct testing according to the DOE test procedure, very little energy use information was available. DOE noted in the September 2016 SNOPR that the highest measured IAEC in DOE's test sample was higher than the baseline IAEC observed during the 2009 rulemaking for each cooking top product class, suggesting that the baseline energy consumption of cooking tops has increased since 2009. Thus, to establish the new baseline IAEC for cooking tops, DOE set the baseline IAEC equal to the maximum IAEC measured in the test sample for each product class. 81 FR 60784, 60814.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, because DOE observed that baseline electric coil cooking tops and gas cooking tops have only electromechanical controls, DOE calculated the baseline IAEC for these product classes based on zero standby mode and off mode energy consumption. In contrast, baseline
electric cooking tops with smooth elements have electronic controls which consume energy in standby and off mode. For the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE determined the baseline IAEC for electric smooth cooking tops by setting the baseline standby energy consumption equal to that of the cooking top with the highest standby energy consumption in its test sample to maintain the full functionality of controls for consumer utility. 81 FR 60784, 60814 (Sept. 2, 2016).
The baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops proposed in the September 2016 SNOPR are presented in Table IV-16.
Id.
EP14DE20.016
AHAM commented that all electric coil cooking tops will require a significant redesign to comply with a change to the voluntary safety standard, UL 858, which took effect on June 15, 2018. The updated UL 858 requires manufacturers to monitor and limit pan bottom temperature for coil elements to reduce the incidence of unattended cooking fires. AHAM stated that, at the time of the comment, manufacturers were developing products to comply with the UL 858 requirements and did not yet know how the changes would impact energy consumption. AHAM asserted that DOE's data and efficiency level analysis may not be representative because they do not reflect products that will enter the market before the compliance date of DOE's proposed standards. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 19-20)
DOE notes that AHAM did not provide data showing how the redesigns necessary to comply with changes to UL 858 impact the measured energy use for electric coil cooking tops. AHAM did, however, provide data in its petition requesting the withdrawal of the test procedure for conventional cooking tops, showing that the time to boil did not significantly increase using temperature limiting controls on electric coil cooking tops that meet UL 858's recently updated requirements.
33
As a result, DOE did not revise its efficiency level analysis for this NOPD based on the requirements in UL 858.
33
AHAM's petition requesting the withdrawal of the test procedure for conventional cooking tops is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004-0002.
With respect to the standby energy consumption for baseline electric coil and gas cooking tops, GE commented that the test procedure proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, which proposed to apportion standby power to the cooking top on a combined cooking product, negatively impacts the cooking top IAEC. GE noted that on a majority of combined cooking products, while the entire product may consume standby power, the controls for the cooking top component consist of electromechanical switches that consume no standby power. GE stated that, as a result of assigning a portion of the standby energy consumption measured for the full combined cooking product to the cooking top component, when comparing the IAEC between an electromechanically controlled stand-alone cooking top and a similarly controlled combined cooking product that has a cooking top, the combined product's cooking top will appear to use more energy. (GE, No. 72 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with GE's assertion that apportioning standby power to the cooking top component on a combined cooking product negatively impacts the cooking top IAEC. As discussed in chapter 9 of the TSD for this NOPD, combined cooking products, such as ranges, represent over 70 percent of the total shipments for consumer conventional cooking products. As a result, DOE revised its analysis for electric coil and gas cooking tops, including the baseline efficiency levels, to account for the standby power consumption apportioned to the cooking top component of a combined product based on the maximum standby power for each product class in DOE's test sample for a cooking top that is part of a combined cooking product. DOE estimated the annual standby energy consumption for gas and electric coil cooking tops to be 30 thousand British thermal units per year (“kBtu/yr”) and 5 kWh/yr, respectively. Because DOE's analysis for electric smooth cooking tops already included standby power, and because the range of observed standby power was similar for stand-alone electric smooth cooking tops and combined cooking products with an electric smooth cooking top, DOE is maintaining its estimates for the standby power consumption of electric smooth cooking tops in this NOPD. DOE also notes that the majority of products in AHAM's test sample, which was factored into this analysis, were conventional ranges that included standby power consumption for the cooking top component.
Based on AHAM's comments regarding the validity of DOE's test sample discussed in section IV.C.1.a of this document, DOE evaluated the combined dataset, including both DOE and AHAM test data, to determine the baseline efficiency levels for
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.