# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Ovens

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-12958

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** June 20, 2023
- **Citation:** 88 FR 39912

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1904-AE00
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Ovens

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule.

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 microwave ovens. 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 whether they would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. It has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is August 21, 2023. Compliance with the amended standards established for microwave ovens in this final rule is required on and after June 22, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the
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
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023.
The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Microwave Ovens

III. General Discussion

A. 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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

1. Market and Technology Assessment

2. Product Classes

3. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

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. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Markup Scenarios

3. Discussion of MIA Comments

K. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

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. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. 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. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Microwave Ovens Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
1

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA
2

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include microwave ovens, the subject of this rulemaking.

1
All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

2
For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. The adopted standards, which are expressed in watts (“W”), are shown in Table I.1. These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on June 22, 2026.

Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Ovens (Compliance Starting June 22, 2026)

Product class

Maximum
allowable
average
standby power,
(watts)

PC 1: Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens
0.6 W

PC 2: Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens
1.0 W

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of microwave ovens, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).
3

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of microwave ovens, which is estimated to be 10.78 years (see section IV.F of this document).

3
The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (
see
section [IV.F.9] of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (
see
section IV.C of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Microwave Ovens

Product class

Average LCC savings
(2021$)

Simple
payback
period
(years)

PC 1: Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens
0.99
1.3

PC 2: Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens
0.83
0.8

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2023-2055). Using a real discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of microwave ovens in the case without amended standards is $1,426 million in 2021 dollars. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −$37.2 million, which represents a change of −2.6 percent, to no change in INPV. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $46.1 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs
4

4
All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2023 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for microwave ovens would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for microwave ovens purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2026-2055), amount to 0.06 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.
5

This represents a savings of 19 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

5
The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. FFC energy savings 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 efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for microwave ovens ranges from $0.16 (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.35 (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for microwave ovens purchased in 2026-2055.

In addition, the adopted standards for microwave ovens are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 1.87 million metric tons (“Mt”)
6

of carbon dioxide (“CO
2
”), 0.85 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO
2
”), 2.88 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO
X
”), 12.64 thousand tons of methane (“CH
4
”), 0.02 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N
2
O”), and 0.005 tons of mercury (“Hg”).
7

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO
2
emissions through 2030 amounts to 0.10 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 19 thousand homes.

6
A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO
2
are presented in short tons.

7
DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the
Annual Energy Outlook 2022
(“
AEO2022”
).
AEO2022
represents current Federal and State legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation.
See
section IV.K of this document for further discussion of
AEO2022
assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO
2
(“SC-CO
2
”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH
4
”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N
2
O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (SC-GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
8

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $0.10 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
9

8

See
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021 (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”
). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.

9
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana
v.
Biden,
No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO
2
and NO
X
emissions reductions, using benefit-per-ton estimates from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.07 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.17 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
10

DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO
2
and NO
X
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects, such as health benefits, from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions.

10
DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Table I.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the amended standards for microwave ovens. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3—Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Ovens

Billion $2021

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
0.43

Climate Benefits *
0.10

Health Benefits **
0.17

Total Benefits †
0.70

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
0.08

Net Benefits
0.62

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
0.21

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)
0.10

Health Benefits **
0.07

Total Benefits†
0.38

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
0.05

Net Benefits
0.34

Note:
This table presents the costs and benefits associated with microwave ovens shipped in 2026−2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO
2
), methane (SC-CH
4
), and nitrous oxide (SC-N
2
O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (
see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana
v.
Biden,
No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO
X
and SO
2
. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO
2
and NO
X
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects, such as health benefits, from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions.
See
section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.
11

11
To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (
e.g.,
2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of microwave ovens shipped in 2026-2055. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of microwave ovens shipped in 2026-2055. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document.

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the standards adopted in this rule, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
X
and SO
2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $4.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $19.5 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $5.2 million in climate benefits, and $6.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $27.3 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the amended standards is $4.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $23.5 million in reduced operating costs, $5.2 million in climate benefits, and $9.2 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $33.5 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Microwave Ovens

Million 2021 $/year

Primary
estimate

Low-net-
benefits
estimate

High-net-
benefits
estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
23.5
22.2
25.0

Climate Benefits *
5.2
5.1
5.4

Health Benefits **
9.2
9.0
9.4

Total Benefits †
37.9
36.3
39.8

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
4.3
4.3
4.2

Net Benefits
33.5
31.9
35.6

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
19.5
18.6
20.5

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)
5.2
5.1
5.4

Health Benefits **
6.9
6.7
7.1

Total Benefits †
31.6
30.4
32.9

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
4.3
4.3
4.2

Net Benefits
27.3
26.1
28.7

Note:
This table presents the costs and benefits associated with microwave ovens shipped in 2026-2055. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
AEO2022
Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.1 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (
see
section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana
v.
Biden,
No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO
X
and SO
2
. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO
2
and NO
X
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions.
See
section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the standards.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
X
and SO
2
reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for microwave ovens is $4.3 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $19.5 million in reduced product operating costs, $5.2 million in climate benefits, and $6.9 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $27.3 million per year.

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
12

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

12
Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.06 quads in FFC energy use and emissions, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 1.6 million homes. In addition, the standards are projected to reduce CO
2
emissions by 1.87 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying final rule technical support document (“TSD”).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for microwave ovens.

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 microwave ovens, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products, and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)(A)-(B)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice 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)(1))

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).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (
See
42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

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 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 microwave ovens appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) § 430.23(i) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I (“appendix I”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including microwave ovens. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 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 (1) for certain products, including microwave ovens, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed 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 the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from 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 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))

Further, EPCA, as codified, 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, as codified, 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))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of products that has 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))

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published on June 17, 2013 (“June 2013 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for microwave ovens manufactured on and after June 17, 2016. 78 FR 36316. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(3) and are repeated in Table II.1.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Ovens

Product class

Maximum
allowable
average
standby power

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens
1.0 W.

Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens
2.2 W.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Microwave Ovens

EPCA prescribed an energy conservation standard for kitchen ranges and ovens, and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend standards for these products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)(A)-(B)) DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles by publishing a final rule on September 8, 1998, that codified the prescriptive design standard for gas cooking products established in EPCA, but found that no standards were justified for electric cooking products, including microwave ovens, at that time. 63 FR 48038, 48053-48054. DOE completed the second rulemaking cycle and published a final rule on April 8, 2009, in which it determined, among other things, that standards for microwave oven active mode energy use were not economically justified. 74 FR 16040.

DOE published the June 2013 Final Rule, adopting energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. 78 FR 36316. In the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE maintained its prior determination that active mode standards are not warranted for microwave ovens and prescribed energy conservation standards that address the standby and off mode energy use of microwave ovens. 78 FR 36316, 36317.

In support of the present review of the microwave oven energy conservation standards, DOE published an early assessment request for information on August 13, 2019, which identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its determination of whether the standards need to be amended. 84 FR 39980.

DOE subsequently published a notice of proposed determination (“NOPD”) on August 12, 2021, in which DOE initially determined that current standards for microwave ovens do not need to be amended. 86 FR 44298. (“August 2021 NOPD”) In the August 2021 NOPD, DOE tentatively determined that there are technology options that would improve the efficiency of microwave ovens. 86 FR 44298, 44310. Based on the analysis conducted for the August 2021 NOPD, DOE estimated that amended standards for microwave oven standby power at the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) level would result in 0.1 quads of energy saved over a 30-year period (representing an estimated 8 percent reduction in site energy use of microwave ovens). 86 FR 44298, 44310.

In evaluating the significance of the estimated energy savings for the August 2021 NOPD, DOE applied a two-part numeric threshold test that was then applicable under section 6(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition). Specifically, the threshold required that an energy conservation standard result in a 0.30 quads reduction in site energy use over a 30-year analysis period or a 10-percent reduction in site energy use over that same period. See 85 FR 8626, 8670 (Feb. 14, 2020). In the August 2021 NOPD, DOE stated that the estimated site energy savings at the max-tech level was under the 0.3-quads/10-percent threshold and tentatively determined that amended energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby power would not result in significant conservation of energy. 86 FR 44298, 44310. DOE also noted that the two-part numeric threshold was under reconsideration. 86 FR 44298, 44302.

On December 13, 2021, DOE published in the
Federal Register
a final rule that amended appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (“appendix A”). 86 FR 70892 (“December 2021 Final Rule”). The December 20201 Final Rule, in part, removed the numeric threshold in section 6(b) of appendix A for determining when the significant energy savings criterion is met, reverting to DOE's prior practice of making such determinations on a case-by-case basis. 86 FR 70892.

After the publication of the NOPD, DOE conducted investigative testing and manufacturer discussions, and updated the engineering analysis to be used in a subsequently published supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“SNOPR”) on August 24, 2022. 87 FR 52282. (“August 2022 SNOPR”) In the August 2022 SNOPR, DOE revised the efficiency levels, manufacturer selling price (“MSP”)-efficiency relationships, and LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts of potential energy conservation standards for microwave ovens on individual consumers. The amended energy conservation standards for microwave ovens proposed in the August 2022 SNOPR are shown in Table II.2. DOE requested comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Table II.2—August 2022 SNOPR Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Ovens

Product class

Maximum
allowable
average
standby power
(watts)

PC 1: Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens
0.6 W.

PC 2: Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens
1.0 W.

DOE held a public meeting on October 11, 2022, to solicit feedback from stakeholders concerning the August 2022 SNOPR, and received 5 comments in response to the August 2022 SNOPR from the interested parties listed in Table II.3.

Table II.3—August 2022 SNOPR Written Comments

Commenter(s)
Abbreviation

Comment
number in
the docket

Commenter type

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
The Joint Commenters
31
Efficiency Organizations.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHAM
28
Trade Association.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Institute for Policy Integrity
C2ES
29
Efficiency Organizations.

Whirlpool Corporation
Whirlpool
30
Manufacturer.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
13

To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the October 11, 2022 webinar, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.

13
The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov
). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this final rule after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. Scope of Coverage

This final rule covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “microwave oven” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2, which defines “microwave oven” as a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy, including microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for surface browning of food and convection microwave ovens. This includes any microwave oven(s) component of a combined cooking product. Any product meeting the definition of microwave oven is included in DOE's scope of coverage.

For this final rule, DOE considered the two product classes of microwave ovens prescribed in the current energy conservation standards: (1) Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens, and (2) Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens.

For these two classes of microwave ovens, DOE's current test procedure measures the energy consumption in standby mode and off mode only. Consequently, DOE's current energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are also expressed in terms of standby mode and off mode power. There are currently no active mode energy conservation standards; nor is there a prescribed test procedure for measuring the active mode energy use or efficiency (
e.g.,
cooking efficiency) of microwave ovens.

The Joint Commenters commented that adopting a standard for active mode energy consumption could achieve “significantly greater” savings than proposed standby power standards, and that DOE should develop a test procedure and standards for active mode power consumption. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 2) DOE previously rejected developing an active mode test procedure in the microwave oven test procedure final rule published on March 30, 2022, (“March 2022 TP Final Rule”) due to undue burden on manufacturers and the lack of an available test procedure that accounts for the efficiency improvements of inverter microwave ovens. 87 FR 18261. As there is no test procedure for measuring the active mode efficiency of a microwave oven, and since development of such a test procedure is out of the scope of this document, DOE is not currently proposing to adopt an active mode energy usage standard.

See section IV.2 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this final rule.

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. DOE will finalize a test procedure establishing methodologies used to evaluate proposed energy conservation standards prior to publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards. Section 8(d)(1) of appendix A. As discussed, DOE amended the test procedure for microwave ovens, set forth in appendix I, in the March 2022 TP Final Rule. DOE's current energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are expressed in terms of watts of standby power. (
See
10 CFR 430.23(j)(3).)

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, 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 rulemaking. 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(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A.

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(b)(3)(ii) through (v) and sections 7(b)(2) through (5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for microwave ovens, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, 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 microwave ovens, 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 rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to microwave ovens purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2026-2055).
14

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year analysis 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 amended energy conservation standards.

14
Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this rule 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 national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended standards for microwave ovens. 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 national energy savings 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 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.
15

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.

15
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

To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking. For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
i.e.,
coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are projected to result in national FFC energy savings of 0.06 quads, the equivalent of the electricity use of 1.6 million homes in one year. DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, 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 rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of potential amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts a Manufacturer Impact Analysis (“MIA”), as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE 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) 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 LCC and 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 of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

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 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.E 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 adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.

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 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)) To assist the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of the August 2022 SNOPR and the SNOPR TSD to the Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that the proposed energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are likely to 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. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

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 effects 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.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to microwave ovens. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation

standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value 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:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/48.
Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)
Annual Energy Outlook
(“
AEO”
) for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

1. 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 rulemaking 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 microwave ovens. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

AHAM commented that it disagrees with DOE addressing European efficiency programs as a part of its analysis for the August 2022 SNOPR. AHAM stated that DOE is improperly making direct comparisons to the European market and should not look to Europe or any other jurisdiction for guidance without first understanding the differences between products in those markets and those in the United States. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 10) In response to AHAM's comment, DOE notes that its analysis of foreign regulatory programs is only to reduce additional manufacturer burden in complying with conflicting standards. DOE did not find any conflicting foreign regulatory programs, nor did it develop trial standards levels based on any foreign regulations. In the case of this rulemaking, foreign regulations had no bearing on DOE's analysis.

2. Product Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (
i.e.,
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 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. (
Id.
)

Any product meeting the definition of a microwave oven, as codified in 10 CFR 430.2, is included in DOE's scope of coverage. “Microwave oven” is defined as a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy, including microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for surface browning of food and convection microwave ovens. This includes any microwave oven(s) component of a combined cooking product.

For this proposal, DOE considered the two product classes of microwave ovens prescribed in the current energy conservation standards: (1) Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens, and (2) Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens.

For these two classes of microwave ovens, DOE's current test procedure measures the energy consumption in standby mode and off mode only. Consequently, DOE's current energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are also expressed in terms of standby mode and off mode power. There are currently no active mode energy conservation standards nor a prescribed test procedure for measuring the active mode energy use or efficiency (
e.g.,
cooking efficiency) of microwave ovens.

In response to the August 2022 SNOPR, AHAM and Whirlpool requested that DOE consider changing microwave oven product classes to align with the three general chassis designs: countertop, built-in, and over-the-range. AHAM commented that the feature sets, design requirements, consumer use patterns, and standby powers are more correlated to chassis type than the presence of convection functionality. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 12) AHAM further stated that, on a shipment-weighted average basis, countertop models consume 0.6 W of standby power, followed by over-the-range models, and built-in models consuming 0.81 W and 1.65 W of standby power, respectively. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 13) Whirlpool added that task lights, exhaust fans, and environmental sensors are some of the unique features of many over-the-range microwave ovens. (Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 6).

In the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE discussed its rationale for establishing the current product class structure. In that rulemaking, DOE acknowledged that over-the-range microwave ovens contain additional relays for components that are not found in countertop units, such as exhaust or cooling fans and cooktop lighting. However, these components were not found in DOE's analysis to require larger power supplies that would affect standby power consumption, and thus would not warrant a separate product class for over-the-range microwave-only ovens from countertop microwave ovens. 78 FR 36328. For this rulemaking, DOE's teardown and analyses of the Compliance Certification Database (“CCD
16

”) showed that microwave ovens have a wide variety of features independent of chassis type. DOE found various sensors, display types, and connectivity features in over-the-range, built-in and countertop microwave ovens. As such, DOE determines that performance-related features are fully reflected by the current product class structure. Additionally, AHAM claims via its shipment-weighted average standby power consumption data that the only meaningful differentiation for product classes is installation configuration. AHAM however did not provide shipments data with sufficient granularity to contradict DOE's previous data and conclusions (
i.e.,
to justify eliminating product class differentiation on the basis of convection features and instead defining product classes solely by installation configuration). As a result, DOE is unable to rely on AHAM's data to revise the product classes. Further, DOE is not aware of, nor did AHAM provide, any data demonstrating that consumer utility varies by chassis type and has impacts on energy use that would justify establishing separate product classes. As a result, DOE is

opting to maintain its current product class structure.

16
Available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.

3. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment for the August 2022 SNOPR, DOE identified four technology options initially determined to improve the efficiency of microwave ovens, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

Table IV.1—Microwave Oven Technology Options

Mode
Technology option

Standby
Lower-power display technologies.

Standby
Cooking sensors with no standby power requirement.

Standby
More efficient power supply and control board options.

Standby
Automatic power-down of most power-consuming components, including the clock display.

In support of the analysis for its August 2022 SNOPR, DOE purchased and tested 33 microwave ovens representing the two proposed product classes, and the results confirmed that microwave oven models currently on the market can achieve standby power consumption values in-between the very low levels enabled by automatic power-down microwave ovens and the proposed levels (
i.e.,
0.6 W for Product Class 1 and 1.0 W for Product Class 2). 87 FR 52283. Further, DOE's testing suggested that microwave ovens are frequently rated conservatively, such that their certified standby power level is higher than actual values obtained when tested in accordance with appendix I. Therefore, DOE was unable to accurately assess the relationship between specific standby power levels and utilized technology options based on data from the CCD. Instead, DOE used the measured standby power levels of microwave oven models in its test sample as a proxy to determine the representative distribution of standby power levels among microwave ovens on the market, as shown in Table
IV.2.
Details of the methodology and results from DOE's investigative testing are included in chapter 3 and chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD as well as the final rule TSD.
17

17
The final rule TSD as well as the SNOPR TSD are available on the docket,
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023-0022.

Table IV.2—Estimated Market Distribution of Microwave Ovens

Standby power
(W)

Market share
(%)

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens

1
15

0.8
45

0.6
29

0.4
11

Built-in and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens

2.2
0

1.5
36

1
59

0.5
5

AHAM commented that it disagreed with DOE's use of tested values rather than CCD reported values in the August 2022 SNOPR, a practice it says undermines the practice of conservatively reporting standby power to allow some “buffer” to ensure consumers are getting what they are promised. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 9) AHAM further commented that conservative rating ensures compliance with applicable standards by providing a safety factor to account for unavoidable variation in the manufacturing process. DOE notes that its tested values were often much lower than the reported values in the CCD, with differences as great as 1.43 W (approximately 65 percent) for Product Class 2 microwave ovens and 0.6192 W (approximately 61 percent) for Product Class 1 microwave ovens. DOE determines these current ratings to be significantly more conservative than is necessary, considering electronics manufacturing processes are sufficiently advanced. Furthermore, DOE did not see any variation in standby power greater than 0.1 W in the duplicate test units.

AHAM additionally commented that the products that use significantly less power than rated undermine the need for new standards, as there is little to gain. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 9)

DOE reiterates that its analysis uses an efficiency distribution based on tested values that shows the existing market to be more efficient compared to that based on overly conservative rated values. As discussed further in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE's analysis demonstrates that despite the use of a more efficient distribution in its analysis as a starting point, the benefits of the standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens at TSL 2 and an amended standard set at this level for microwave ovens would be economically justified. Additionally, AHAM's comment underscores the importance of testing units rather than relying solely on data from the CCD.

As part of the analysis for the August 2022 SNOPR, DOE subsequently tore down all 33 microwave ovens, but was unable to isolate a unique set of technology options associated with each standby power level. As such, DOE concluded that models demonstrating lower standby power consumption than the current energy conservation standards are not implementing specific technology options; rather, they are incorporating a comprehensive, system-level control board redesign that prioritizes standby power performance from the ground up. Examples of possible redesign strategies include (1) the replacement of microcontrollers with modern ones that demonstrate significantly lower quiescent current consumption and (2) firmware that emphasizes the shutting down of any subassemblies that are not in use while idle. DOE estimated that while these improvements would not contribute to the incremental manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) of a control board, the redesign would result in significant conversion costs for manufacturers as they attempt to bring their microwave oven models into compliance with any proposed standards.
See
section IV.J.2.a of this document.

In the August 2022 SNOPR, DOE requested feedback on its tentative conclusion that reducing the standby power consumption of a microwave oven would require a whole-board redesign, and that manufacturers would incur a one-time conversion cost without any additional MPC. AHAM and Whirlpool agreed with DOE's assessment that standby power reduction is a system-level redesign challenge, and that standby power often cannot be reduced with simple component changes. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 6) AHAM and Whirlpool disagreed with DOE's conclusion that redesign would not impact overall MPC of a given product. Whirlpool commented that the new classes of microprocessors, display backlight circuits, display deep sleep technologies, and power switches may be necessary to reach higher efficiencies, and that this will add to the MPC for more efficient microwave ovens. (Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 7) AHAM commented that changes to the control board may require manufacturers to evaluate and replace or remove components affected by the control board (
e.g.,
displays, sensors,

and clock) to reach amended standard levels. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 5)

In response to AHAM and Whirlpool's comments, DOE notes that the analysis of the 33 microwave ovens noted above included product teardowns and establishing costed bill of materials. DOE examined the datasheets for components used in each design but was unable to establish a strong relationship between the use of better components and a microwave oven's overall standby performance. DOE found that while standby performance could be improved by opting for a better component, such as in the case of microcontrollers with deep sleep states, the cost differentials were often zero or negative. In all situations, DOE found that overall circuit design rather than component selection itself had a greater impact on standby performance cost. In the absence of additional cost data showing a clear MPC-efficiency relationship, DOE maintains its conclusion that any system-level redesign would not contribute to an incremental MPC increase.

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 a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for 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 utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A.

In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.

The subsequent sections include 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

DOE considers whether a technology option will adversely impact consumer utility and product availability. To that end, DOE has previously stated it is uncertain the extent to which consumers value the function of a continuous display clock, but that loss of such function may result in significant loss of consumer utility. 78 FR 36316, 36362. Consistent with this prior concern, DOE has screened out “automatic power-down” as a technology option due to its impact on consumer utility in this final rule.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.B.2 of this document meet all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

(1) Lower-power display technologies;

(2) Cooking sensors with no standby power requirement; and

(3) More efficient power supply and control board options.

DOE determines 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). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.

AHAM and Whirlpool asserted that DOE's revised standards will cause an unacceptable loss of product functionality, and that future features will not be able to be added to microwave ovens due to feature power draw and DOE's practice of undermining conservative ratings. (AHAM, No. 28 at pp. 3-4, 8; Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 5) AHAM provided a confidential list of various features that it states would be impossible to implement at DOE's updated standards. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 4) AHAM additionally commented that manufacturers will also be unable to incorporate indoor air quality (“IAQ”) sensors, which may be required by future state building codes and could be impossible to implement due to EPCA's backsliding provision. (
Id.
at pp. 3, 13) AHAM and Whirlpool commented that other sensors may also need to be removed as well, driving consumers to use less efficient methods of cooking, and Whirlpool added that it was not aware of any humidity sensors that do not impact standby power. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 30 at pp. 4, 7) Finally, AHAM stated that updated microwave oven standby power standards could lead to a loss of connectivity features in microwave ovens. (AHAM, No 28 at p. 3)

The Joint Commenters commented that they were able to find many Product Class 1
18

units from various manufacturers with reported powers below 0.6 W that incorporated sensor technologies. (Joint Commenters, No. 31 at p. 3)

18
Product Class 1 comprises microwave-only ovens and countertop convection microwave ovens.

In response to these comments, DOE concludes that IAQ monitoring sensors (smoke and carbon monoxide(“CO”)) are technologically mature enough to be implemented without any significant impact to microwave oven standby power budgets due to the prevalence and maturity of low-power smoke and carbon monoxide detectors required by most state building codes.
19

DOE researched additional sensors that might be applicable for use in microwave ovens, and found low-power options for IAQ, such as the Bosch BME688, with an average current consumption of 0.1 milliamps (“mA”) at 3.6 volts (“V”) in low power mode, and the Renesas ZMOD4410 with an average power consumption of 0.16 milliwatts in ultra-low power mode. Similarly, DOE found

flame detection sensors, such as the Kemet QFS series, with an average current draw of 3.5 microamps (“µA”) at 3.6 V and PM sensors, such as the Sensirion SPS30, with an idle current draw of 330 µA and a sleep current draw of 50 µA.

19
DOE found that the First Alert BRK PRC710 and Kidde P3010CU combination smoke and CO detectors include sealed batteries meant to last 10 years.

Regarding AHAM's comment that updated standards impact connectivity features, DOE notes that section 2.1.1 of appendix I instructs that if a microwave oven can communicate through a network (
e.g.,
Bluetooth® or internet connection), the network function is disabled for the duration of standby mode and off mode testing, if it is possible to disable it by means provided in the manufacturer's user manual. Furthermore, DOE's testing did not find any correlation between presence of connected features and standby power consumption. Similarly, DOE did not find any standby power impact from humidity sensors in the microwave ovens tested and torn down. An additional review of available humidity sensors showed multiple models without a listed electrical warm-up time, as well as sensors with power requirements less than 0.005 W (
e.g.
review of datasheets for humidity sensors from component manufacturers such as Reneas, Amphenol, and Texas Instrument shows typical supply currents in the range of 1 to 200 µA).

With regards to loss of features and functionality, DOE notes that many of the features discussed confidentially by AHAM were already present in the microwave ovens torn down by DOE and therefore were captured by DOE in its analysis. DOE also determines that those features discussed by AHAM that were not seen in DOE's teardown analysis would not impact standby power, as the microwave oven would not be in standby mode while those features are activated. Instead, the features would be disconnected, turned off, or put into a quiescent state
20

in order to place the microwave oven in standby mode for testing. As such, DOE determines that amending standards would neither impact the types of sensors that can be used in microwave oven designs nor adversely impact consumer utility.

20
In electronics design, Quiescent state or Quiescent mode is defined as a state of inactivity or dormancy, with attributes of very low current draw.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of microwave ovens. 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 microwave ovens, 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/equipment 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 “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 applied the efficiency-level approach. As discussed, DOE was unable to use the design-option approach because it did not identify specific design options associated with each standby power level.

a. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use

For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point against which to measure changes resulting from energy conservation standards. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of a product typical of that class (
e.g.,
capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.

For microwave-only ovens and countertop convection microwave ovens (“Product Class 1”), the baseline standby power level is equal to the current standard of 1.0 W. For the built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens product class (“Product Class 2”), the baseline standby power consumption used for the analysis is equal to the current standard of 2.2 W. This maximum allowable average standby power consumption for Product Class 2 is higher than that allowed for Product Class 1 microwave ovens because, in the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE concluded that built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens require a larger power supply to support additional features, such as an exhaust fan, additional relays, and additional lights, and that the larger power supply contributes to a higher standby power consumption. 78 FR 36316, 36328. Nonetheless, DOE expects that certain available design options for reducing standby power consumption for Product Class 2 microwave ovens would be similar to those for Product Class 1 microwave ovens.

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

Using the efficiency-level approach, the higher 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). As noted in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE's testing suggests that microwave ovens are frequently rated conservatively, such that their certified standby power level is higher than actual values obtained when tested in accordance with appendix I. DOE therefore used the measured standby power levels of microwave oven models in its test sample as a proxy to determine the representative distribution of standby power levels among microwave ovens currently on the market, as shown in Table IV.2.

According to this efficiency distribution, 85 percent of Product Class 1 microwave ovens achieve a standby power consumption lower than the

current standard of 1.0 W, with 45 percent of the market estimated to be achieving 0.8 W, 29 percent achieving 0.6 W, and 11 percent achieving 0.4 W, all without the use of automatic power-down. For Product Class 1, therefore, DOE analyzed three efficiency levels (“ELs”) above the baseline, which correspond to these three standby power levels, as shown in Table IV.3.

The test results also showed that all of the Product Class 2 test units achieved a standby power consumption in the range of 0.5 W to 1.5 W, lower than the current standard of 2.2 W. As such, DOE analyzed higher efficiency levels for this product class at standby power values evenly distributed within that range: EL 1 at 1.5 W, EL 2 at 1.0 W, and EL 3 (max-tech) at 0.5 W. DOE estimates that there are currently no built-in and over-the-range convection microwave ovens in the market at the baseline standby power consumption of 2.2 W.

In summary, DOE analyzed the following efficiency levels for this rule:

Table IV.3—Analyzed Efficiency Levels for Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens

Efficiency level

Standby power
(W)

Baseline
1.00

1
0.8

2
0.6

3 (Max-Tech)
0.4

Table IV.4—Analyzed Efficiency Levels for Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens

Efficiency level

Standby power
(W)

Baseline
2.2

1
1.5

2
1.0

3 (Max-Tech)
0.5

The Joint Commenters requested that DOE analyze an additional efficiency level above max-tech, citing a number of microwave ovens in the CCD with reported standby powers of less than 0.3 W. The Joint Commenters further stated that many of these microwave ovens do not utilize the screened-out automatic power-down technology option, making this a viable efficiency level for manufacturers.

With regard to the Joint Commenters request, DOE's review of the market has shown that the majority of the microwave ovens at or below 0.3 W utilize other screened-out technology options (no clock, no display, and automatic power-down) to achieve a low standby power, and that an EL above max-tech would require designing microwave ovens with a significant impact to consumer utility. Also, as discussed further in section V.C of this document, DOE has determined that there is uncertainty as to whether or not a standard at max-tech would stifle innovation and risk impacting customer utility. Accordingly, DOE has elected not to analyze an efficiency level above the max-tech discussed in the August 2022 SNOPR.

AHAM and Whirlpool commented that electromagnetic interference (“EMI”) filtration boards draw a significant amount of power that DOE's analysis did not take into account. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 6; Whirlpool, No. 30, at pp. 2-3) Furthermore, AHAM stated that EMI filters that draw less power than those currently in use may not be as effective at filtering out conducted electromagnetic fields (“EMF”). Whirlpool stated that effective filter designs can account for up to 0.3 W of standby power in a microwave oven. (Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 4) AHAM commented that a survey of the current market found filter board power contributions of 0.17 W for countertop microwave ovens, 0.22 W for over-the-range microwave ovens, and 0.08 W for built-in microwave ovens (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 6).

As detailed in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD, DOE conducted a number of additional standby power tests on a sample of nine microwave ovens from both product classes after removing their input power filtration boards. Tested units included inverter microwave ovens, which tend to have more expensive and complex filtration boards, and units with different sensors and WiFi functionality.

DOE found that the sampled power filtration boards, on average, account for only 0.012 W of power during standby testing, calculated as the difference between the standby power with the filter installed and the standby power without the filter installed. This average measured value of 0.012 W is approximately 25 times less than Whirlpool's estimate (0.3 W) and about 10 times less than the shipment-weighted average of AHAM's reported values (0.173 W) using shipment weights provided by Whirlpool in its comments. (Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 6) DOE conducted a single-tailed T-test to determine whether AHAM's reported mean differs in a statistically significant way from the measured mean. The resulting p-value rejected the null hypothesis (
i.e.,
the difference is indeed statistically significant and not due to sampling artifices). Whirlpool commented that DOE's tested models may not utilize the highest levels of filtering. (Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 4) Since neither AHAM nor Whirlpool provided any further information identifying brands and models used to arrive at these values, DOE cannot verify the comments that EMI filtration boards take up a significant amount of a microwave's standby power budget, nor that DOE's tests were not representative of the market.

DOE performed additional teardown analysis of power filter boards from tested microwave ovens. All boards were passive filtration boards that utilize (1) a selection of capacitors and a common mode choke for mains power filtration; (2) a safety capacitor bleed resistor used to discharge capacitors that might otherwise shock a user when unplugging the unit from the wall; and (3) In some cases, a metal oxide varistor likely for voltage transient suppression. The primary standby power draw of this circuit is the always-connected bleeder resistor, which can be further eliminated with minimal impact to EMI filtration quality by using any number of automatic safety capacitor discharge circuits. However, this approach to reducing standby power with an automatic safety capacitor discharge circuit would only be relevant and meaningful if the power consumption of EMI filters with regular bleed resistors were significant. As discussed previously, DOE's testing showed power consumption of EMI filters to be a fraction of what AHAM and Whirlpool commented. The use of automatic capacitor discharge circuits would therefore not be meaningful and/or necessary.

Additionally, AHAM commented that microwave ovens account for 40.51 percent of consumer-reported nuisance trips when connected to a mains line with an arc-fault circuit interrupter (“AFCI”) circuit breaker. (AHAM, No. 28 at p. 8) AHAM stated that manufacturers traditionally outfit microwave ovens with EMI filters designed to only meet emissions limits established by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in 47 CFR part 15 and 47 CFR part 18 (referred to as “Part 15” and “Part 18”), and that actual limits for avoiding accidental “nuisance” tripping are much more stringent and require EMI filters that consume more power. (AHAM, No. 28 at pp. 6-8) With increasing use of AFCIs in homes, Whirlpool commented that DOE must account for the additional power draw

of AFCI-compliant EMI filters when amending standards or risk losing other features that provide consumer utility. (Whirlpool, No. 30 at p. 4)

DOE researched guidance for appliance manufacturers on ensuring compatibility with AFCI outlets. As part of its efforts to promote the use of AFCIs, the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association (“NEMA”) has published guidelines
21

for appliance manufacturers that wish to design appliances that are compatible with AFCI outlets. These guidelines were developed by the Molded Case Circuit Breaker Product Group of the Low Voltage Distribution Equipment Section of NEMA. At the time of publication, this group included ABB Control, Inc.; Eaton Corporation; General Electric; Siemens Industry, Inc.; and Schneider Electric USA, all manufacturers of AFCIs. Although it is unclear how many of these members participated in the development of NEMA's guidance, DOE has not found contradicting guidance from any AFCI manufacturers.

21
National Electrical Manufacturer's Association.
Recommendations on AFCI/Home Electrical Product Compatibility.
2011. Rosslyn, VA.

NEMA's white paper describes the emission limits recommendations for appliance manufacturers. Specifically, NEMA recommends that manufacturers meet Part 15 requirements for Class B devices, even if appliances are not subject to these regulations. DOE notes that the Part 15 requirements for conducted emissions of Class B devices are the same as the Part 18 requirements for consumer devices other than induction cooking ranges and ultrasonic equipment. Thus, if manufacturers are designing microwave ovens to meet Part 18 requirements as AHAM states, they are following the leading industry guidance for avoiding AFCI nuisance tripping.

Although AHAM commented that AFCIs are being improperly tripped by normal microwave use, DOE recognizes that there are many potential sources of arcing in a microwave oven that may be difficult for consumers to recognize, potentially leading to an over-reporting of nuisance tripping. Unwanted arcing can occur during cooking if there are materials that reflect microwaves; the microwave is improperly loaded (ran empty or nearly empty); or there is a stalled stirrer blade or non-rotating antenna, which may not be visible to the consumer, resulting in reflected microwaves. In all three of these cases, the AFCI is performing its function correctly by detecting arcs and preventing further power draw, though consumers may not be aware that these arcs are occurring. Microwave ovens also rely on a number of relays to control various functionality. Relays, if not properly implemented, can also be prone to producing excessive arcing that may trip AFCIs. Thus, AFCIs can correctly trip from detected arcs that may be invisible to consumers.

In sum, DOE does not find that future EMI filter board designs would substantively alter the standby power levels that microwave ovens can achieve and concludes, therefore, that EMI filtration board power draw will not prohibit future innovation in microwave ovens. Further, DOE determined that microwave ovens are already meeting the leading guidance for avoiding nuisance tripping and will continue to do so as long as manufacturers design according to mandatory FCC standards.

2. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the microwave oven on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

•
Physical teardowns:
Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.

•
Catalog teardowns:
In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product.

•
Price surveys:
If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (
e.g.,
large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.

For microwave ovens, DOE attempted to estimate the MPC of attaining each efficiency level using the physical teardowns approach described previously. As stated in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE tore down all 33 microwave ovens in its test sample but was unable to isolate a unique set of technology options associated with each standby power level. As such, DOE concludes that models demonstrating lower standby power consumption than the current energy conservation standards are not implementing specific technology options, but rather incorporate a comprehensive system-level control board design that prioritizes standby power performance from the ground up. Examples of possible design strategies include the replacement of microcontrollers and switch mode controllers with modern ones that demonstrate significantly lower quiescent current consumption at no additional cost compared to those found in inefficient systems and firmware that emphasizes the shutting down of all subassemblies that are not in use while idle. DOE estimates that, while these improvements would not contribute to an increase in the MPC of a control board (
i.e.,
incremental MPC of $0), the redesign would result in conversion costs for manufacturers as they bring their microwave oven models into compliance with any proposed standards.
See
section IV.J.2.a of this document. To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting MSP is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports filed by publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in household cooking appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes microwave ovens.

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”) in the form of MPC (in dollars) versus standby power consumption (in W). For the reasons discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.C.2 of this document, DOE estimated an incremental MPC of $0 at all higher efficiency levels, compared to the baseline MPC, for both of the product classes, as shown in Table IV.5 and Table IV.6 of this document.
See
chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis.

Table IV.5—Analyzed Efficiency Levels and Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Convection Microwave Ovens

Efficiency level

Standby power
(W)

Incremental MPC
(2021$)

Baseline
1.00

1
0.8
0.0

2
0.6
0.0

3
0.4
0.0

Table IV.6—Analyzed Efficiency Levels and Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Built-In and Over-the-Range Convection Microwave Ovens

Efficiency level

Standby power
(W)

Incremental MPC
(2021$)

Baseline
2.20

1
1.5
$0.0

2
1.00
$0.0

3
0.5
$0.0

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (
e.g.,
retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.

For microwave ovens, DOE further developed baseline and incremental markups for each link in the distribution chain (after the product leaves the manufacturer). Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.
22

22
Because the projected price of standards-compliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive, it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.

DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the “electronics and appliance stores” sector to develop retailer markups.
23

23
US Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade Survey. 2017.
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html
.

Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for microwave ovens.

E. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of microwave ovens at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and mobile homes, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased microwave ovens efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of microwave ovens in the field (
i.e.,
as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.

For this final rule, DOE used the same methodology as that described in section IV.D of the August 2022 SNOPR. In the June 2013 Final Rule, DOE determined the average hours of operation for microwave ovens to be 44.9 hours per year.
24 25

To calibrate the average annual operating hours, DOE primarily used data from the EIA's 2020
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(“
RECS
”).

26

RECS 2020
provides information on the frequency of microwave oven usage per week for each household. DOE calculated the
RECS
microwave oven usage factor for each household in the sample by dividing the weighted-average usage based on the entire
RECS
samples. DOE then multiplied the usage factor by the annual operating hours (
i.e.,
44.9 hours) for each household in the
RECS.
DOE subtracted field microwave ovens operating hours from the total number of hours in a year and multiplied that difference by the standby mode power usage at each efficiency level to determine annual standby mode and off mode energy consumption.

24
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Cooking Products. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I,
www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/appendix-I_to_subpart_B_of_part_430.

25
Williams,
et al.
2012. Surveys of Microwave Ovens in U.S. Homes. LBNL-5947E
www.osti.gov/biblio/1172657.

26
U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2020 Public Use Microdata Files, 2015. Washington, DC. Available online at:
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse20/pubuse20.html.

Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for microwave ovens.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:

• The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of

total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

• 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 at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of microwave ovens in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed household samples from the
RECS 2020.
For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the microwave ovens and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of microwave ovens.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and microwave ovens user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel together with the Crystal Ball
TM
add-on.
27

The model calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of microwave ovens as if each were to purchase a new product in the first year of required compliance with new or amended standards. Amended standards apply to microwave ovens manufactured 3 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)) Therefore, DOE used 2026 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards for microwave ovens.

27
Crystal Ball
TM
is a commercially-available software tool to facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel, available at
www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html
(last accessed December 13, 2022).

Table IV.5 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.5—Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *

Inputs
Source/method

Product Cost
Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs.

Installation Costs
Assumed no change with efficiency level.

Annual Energy Use

The total annual energy use multiplied by the hours per year. Average number of hours based on field data.
Variability: Based on the RECS 2020.

Energy Prices

Electricity: Based on EEI 2021.
Variability: Regional energy prices determined for nine regions.

Energy Price Trends

Based on
AEO2022
price projections.

Repair and Maintenance Costs
Assumed no change with efficiency level.

Product Lifetime
Average: 10.78 years.

Discount Rates
Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.

Compliance Date
2026.

* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.

1. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.

Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of many products may trend downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves. An experience curve analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide level. To derive the learning rate parameter for microwave ovens, DOE obtained historical Producer Price Index (“PPI”) data for microwave ovens from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). A PPI for “Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing: Electric (Including Microwave) Household Ranges, Ovens, Surface Cooking Units,

and Equipment” was available for the time period between 1972 and 2020.
28

Inflation-adjusted price indices were calculated by dividing the PPI series by the gross domestic product index from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for the same years. Using data from 1972-2020, the estimated learning rate (defined as the fractional reduction in price expected from each doubling of cumulative production) is 10.7 percent.

28
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PPI Industry Data, Major household appliance manufacturers, Product series ID: PCU 33522033522011. Data series available at:
www.bls.gov/ppi/.

2. Installation Cost

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from 2022 to estimate the baseline installation cost for microwave ovens. DOE found no evidence that installation costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels.

3. Annual Energy Consumption

For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption for a microwave oven at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this document.

4. Energy Prices

Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”) Typical Bills and Average Rates reports.
29

Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Bera

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-12958. Public record. Not legal advice.