Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products

Federal RegisterFeb 14, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]

RIN 1904-AF57

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Direct 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 consumer conventional cooking products. In this direct final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. DOE has determined that the new and 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 June 13, 2024. If adverse comments are received by June 3, 2024 and DOE determines that such comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the

Federal Register

. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the new and amended standards established for consumer conventional cooking products in this direct final rule is required on and after January 31, 2028. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct final rule should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section on or before March 15, 2024.

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-2014-BT-STD-0005

. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct final rule. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at

www.energy.standards@usdoj.gov

on or before the date specified in the

DATES

section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this direct final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 751-5157. Email:

Melanie.Lampton@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct 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. Current Test Procedure

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products

4. The Joint Agreement

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View

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

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking Tops

2. Technology Options

a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops

b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops

c. Gas Cooking Tops

d. Conventional Ovens

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops

b. Gas Cooking Tops

c. Conventional Ovens

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Conventional Cooking Tops

b. Conventional Ovens

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

a. Electric Cooking Tops

b. Gas Cooking Tops

c. Conventional Ovens

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Product Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. 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. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Comments From Interested Parties

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

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis

P. Other Comments

1. Commerce Clause

2. Fuel Neutrality under EPCA

3. National Academy of Sciences Report

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. National Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

a. General Comments

b. Market Availability

c. High Input Rate Burners

d. Low Input Rate Burners

e. Cooking Time

f. Continuous Cast-Iron Grates

g. Conventional Ranges

h. Unit Width

i. Conclusion

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 Consumer Conventional Cooking Products Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

1. Sampling and Test Procedure Repeatability

2. Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

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 Direct Final Rule

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

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

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer conventional cooking products, the subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))

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.

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, among other things, 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))

In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing and amending energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products.

The adopted standard levels in this direct final rule were proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. This letter, titled “Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023” (hereafter, the “Joint Agreement”

), recommends specific energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support from States including New York, California, and Massachusetts

and utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric (“SDG&E”) and Southern California Edison (“SCE”)

advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12812

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12813

In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that contains identical standards to those adopted in this direct final rule. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, DOE will publish the reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))

See

section II.A of this document for more details on DOE's statutory authority.

The new and amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement (shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2). They are performance-based standards for conventional cooking tops and prescriptive standards for conventional ovens. The standards for conventional cooking tops are expressed in terms of integrated annual energy consumption (“IAEC”), measured in thousand British thermal units per year (“kBtu/year”) for gas cooking tops and in kilowatt-hours per year (“kWh/year”) for electric cooking tops, as measured according to DOE's current conventional cooking top test procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 (“appendix I1”).

The Joint Agreement replaces the existing prescriptive standard for gas cooking tops—which prohibits a constant burning pilot light—with a performance standard that is expressed as the maximum IAEC as determined in accordance with the appendix I1 test procedure. The Joint Agreement excludes portable indoor conventional cooking tops (discussed in section III.A of this document) from these amended standards, and DOE is clarifying in this direct final rule that the existing prohibition on constant burning pilot lights for gas portable indoor conventional cooking tops will continue to be applicable. For electric cooking tops, the Joint Agreement recommends

a performance standard that similarly is expressed as the maximum IAEC, determined in accordance with the appendix I1 test procedure. For both gas and electric cooking tops, the IAEC metric includes active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use. The Joint Agreement's standards for conventional cooking tops apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2028.

ER14FE24.000

DOE notes that none of the Department's energy conservation standards limit a consumer's use of a covered product, including consumer conventional cooking products. For example, the Joint Agreement's performance standards for conventional cooking tops, which are expressed as the maximum IAEC in kWh/year for electric cooking tops and kBtu/year for gas cooking tops, do not limit consumers' use of a conventional cooking top within the home. Rather, the IAEC metric is a measure of the estimated energy usage for a given cooking top model for a representative period of use (in this case, 1 year), as determined according to the DOE test procedure. Expressing energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops in terms of the IAEC metric provides a common point of comparison across all conventional cooking top models,

e.g.,

a conventional cooking top with a lower IAEC is more energy efficient. And establishing a maximum IAEC ensures that all conventional cooking tops meet at least a certain level of energy efficiency, while not limiting a consumer's use of their conventional cooking top.

This direct final rule also establishes a prescriptive design requirement for conventional ovens that prohibits conventional ovens from being equipped with a control system that uses a linear power supply. (

See

Table I.2.) The new and amended standards recommended in the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (“TSL”) 1 in this document and are described in section V.A of this document. These standards apply to all conventional ovens manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2028, as recommended by the Joint Agreement. DOE also notes that the current prescriptive standards for gas ovens prohibiting constant burning pilot lights will continue to be applicable. (10 CFR 430.32(j)) Table I.2 provides a summary of the standards for conventional ovens.

ER14FE24.001

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products, which is estimated to be 14.5 and 16.8 years for gas and electric cooking products, respectively (

see

section IV.F of this document).

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).

ER14FE24.002

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 (2024) through the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed compliance date.

Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products in the case without new and amended standards is $1,601 million.

Under the adopted standards, which align with the Recommended TSL for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −9.0 percent to −9.0 percent, which is approximately a change in INPV of −$144 million to −$143 million, respectively. In order to bring products into compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $66.7 million.

DOE's analysis period extends 30 years from the compliance year. The analysis period ranges from 2024-2056 for the no-new-standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 1 (the Recommended TSL). The analysis period for the Recommended TSL ranges from 2024-2057 due to the 2028 compliance year.

The no-new-standards case INPV of $1,601 million reflects the sum of discounted free cash flows from 2024-2056 (from the reference year to 30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a discounted terminal value.

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

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars. and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2028-2057), amount to 0.22 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of approximately 2 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without new or amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

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 consumer conventional cooking products ranges from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.56 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer conventional cooking products purchased in 2028-2057.

In addition, the adopted standards for consumer conventional cooking products 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 3.99 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

”), 1.15 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO

”), 7.61 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO

”), 34.70 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N

O”), and 0.01 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 0.06 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 11 thousand homes.

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (“AEO2023”). AEO2023

reflects, to the extent possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO2023

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

(“SC-CO

”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”).

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 $0.22 billion. 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.

To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses values that are based on the

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990

published in February 2021 by the IWG. (“Feb. 2021 SC-GHG TSD”

). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates from Environmental

Protection Agency,

as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE did not monetize the reduction in mercury emissions because the quantity is very small. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.42 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (PM

2.5

) concentrations from two precursors (SO

and NO

), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO

), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions.

U.S. EPA. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM

2.5

, PM

2.5

Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors

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.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the new and amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products. 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.

ER14FE24.003

ER14FE24.004

The benefits and costs of the adopted 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.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, 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 2024. 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 consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2028-2057. 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 total benefits are presented for all four SC-GHG discount rates in section V.B.6 of this document.

Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standards, 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

and SO

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 $3.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $68.1 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $12.4 million in climate benefits, and $16.1 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $92.6 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $4.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $90.8 million in reduced operating costs, $12.4 million in climate benefits, and $23.5 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $122.7 million per year.

ER14FE24.005

ER14FE24.006

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 has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO

and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $3.9 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $68.1 million in reduced product operating costs, $12.4 million in climate benefits, and $16.1 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $92.6 million per year. DOE notes that the net benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits,

and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits.

The information on climate benefits is provided in compliance with Executive Order 12866.

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.

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 0.22 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 1.4 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce cumulative CO

emissions by 3.99 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct 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 technical support document (“TSD”).

The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document

Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule establishing and amending the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also simultaneously publishing elsewhere in this

Federal Register

a NOPR proposing standards that are identical to those contained in this direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for consumer conventional cooking products.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer conventional cooking products, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)) 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 conventional cooking tops appear at appendix I1. There are currently no DOE test procedures for conventional ovens.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional cooking products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a 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 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))

EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of product 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 considers 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))

Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are 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)) DOE's current test procedures for conventional cooking tops address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the new and amended standards adopted in this direct final rule.

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a final rule (

i.e.,

a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically provides a comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the same length as the comment period on the direct final rule—

i.e.,

110 days. Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. (

Id.

)

DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule” or “appendix A”), DOE noted that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued through consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority.

Id.

DOE's discretion remains bounded by its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified—a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

Id.

As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (“April 2009 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products that prohibit constant burning pilot lights for all gas cooking products (

i.e.,

gas cooking products with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2).

2. Current Test Procedure

On August 22, 2022, DOE published a test procedure final rule (“August 2022 TP Final Rule”) establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, “Uniform Test Method for the Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.” 87 FR 51492. The test procedure adopted the latest version of the relevant industry standard published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”), Standard 60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-08), “Household electric cooking appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance” (“IEC 60350-2:2021”), for electric cooking tops with modifications including adapting the test method to gas cooking tops, normalizing the energy use of each test cycle to a consistent final water temperature, and including a measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use.

Id.

On February 7, 2023, DOE published correcting amendments to the August 2022 TP Final Rule (“February 2023 Correcting Amendments”). 88 FR 7846. Neither the errors and omissions nor the corrections affected the substance of the rulemaking, or any conclusions reached in support of the August 2022 TP Final Rule.

Id.

3. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (“NAECA”), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)) NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent or additional standards were justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2))

DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a final rule on September 8, 1998 (“September 1998 Final Rule”), which found that no standards were justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. 63 FR 48038. In addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating at that time that elimination of standing pilot lights for gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord was economically justified, DOE did not include amended standards for gas cooking products in the September 1998 Final Rule. 63 FR 48038, 48039-48040. For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published the April 2009 Final Rule amending the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning pilot lights for all gas cooking products (

i.e.,

gas cooking products with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after April 9, 2012. DOE decided to not adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of conventional electric cooking products because it determined that such standards would not be technologically feasible and economically justified at that time. 74 FR 16040, 16085.

As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE decided not to adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of microwave ovens. DOE has since published a final rule on June 20, 2023, adopting amended energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 88 FR 39912. DOE is not considering energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as part of this direct final rule.

4. The Joint Agreement

On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (

i.e.,

the Joint Agreement) recommending standards for consumer conventional cooking products that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.

In addition to the

recommended standards for consumer conventional cooking products, the Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other covered products.

And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the recommended standards in the agreement. That is distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory criteria. The Joint Agreement recommends new and amended standard levels for consumer conventional cooking products as presented in Table II.1. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.

The signatories to the Joint Agreement include the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation;

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation.

The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-12811

ER14FE24.007

The Joint Agreement also stated that the signatories would propose separately to DOE the inclusion of an alternative simmer calculation in the DOE test procedure for use in certification. (

Id.

) The Joint Agreement specified that, for enforcement purposes, DOE would rely on the full simmer test, rather than the alternative simmer calculation (which would be similar to the triangulation method used for refrigerator/freezers at 10 CFR 429.134(b)(2)). (

Id.

) DOE received a comment on the cooking top test procedure from the Joint Agreement signatories

on January 5, 2024, and will address the issues raised in the comment in a separate test procedure rulemaking.

In the test procedure comment letter, only the following Joint Agreement signatories were included: AHAM, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Furthermore, AHAM noted that it represents the following companies who manufacture residential cooking products are members of the AHAM Major Appliance Division: Arcelik A.S.; Beko US, Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; De'Longhi America, Inc.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber S.p.A.; FOTILE America, LLC; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; Gradient, Inc.; Hisense USA Corporation; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation of America; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation.

When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for consumer conventional cooking products. As part of that process, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“SNOPR”) and announced a public meeting on February 1, 2023, (“February 2023 SNOPR”) seeking comment on its proposed new and amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 88 FR 6818. The February 2023 SNOPR proposed new and amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products, consisting of maximum IAEC levels for electric and gas cooking tops and design requirements for conventional ovens.

Id.

Subsequently, on February 28, 2023, DOE published a notification of data availability (“NODA”) providing additional information to clarify the February 2023 SNOPR analysis for gas cooking tops (“February 2023 NODA”). 88 FR 6818. Finally, on August 2, 2023, DOE published a second NODA (“August 2023 NODA”) updating its analysis for gas cooking tops based on the stakeholder data it received in response to the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 50810. The February 2023 SNOPR TSD is available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005-0090

Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule and no longer proceeding with its own rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant comments, data, and information obtained during that rulemaking process

in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were obtained during DOE's prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical reference that provides the location of the item in the public record.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, 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 is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

A. Scope of Coverage

Before discussing how the Joint Agreement meets the requirements for issuing a direct final rule, it is important to clarify the scope of coverage for the recommended standards. DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2 define “cooking products” as consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units

and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 430.2. This direct final rule covers consumer conventional cooking products,

i.e.,

those consumer cooking products that meet the definition of “conventional cooking top” and “conventional oven,” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. Industrial cooking equipment and microwave ovens are not in the scope of this direct final rule.

The term “surface unit” refers to burners for gas cooking tops and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating elements for electric cooking tops.

In the Joint Agreement, portable cooking products are excluded from the Recommended TSL. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) However DOE does not currently have a definition for portable cooking products, nor does the Joint Agreement specify one.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE proposed to define a portable conventional cooking top as a conventional cooking top designed to be moved from place to place. 88 FR 6818, 6829. Using this definition, DOE proposed that the proposed standards for conventional cooking tops would apply to portable models according to their means of heating (gas, electric open (coil) element, or electric smooth element).

Id.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposed definition for portable conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to include portable conventional cooking tops in the existing product classes.

Id.

Stakeholder comments received in response to the February 2023 SNOPR regarding DOE's definition of portable conventional cooking top and proposal to include portable conventional cooking tops in the standards were consistent with the exclusion of portable cooking products specified in the Joint Agreement.

AHAM stated its strong opposition to the inclusion of portable cooking tops in the scope of energy conservation standards for cooking tops because AHAM asserted DOE had done no analysis on this product type and made little mention of them in the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 28-29; AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 31-32) AHAM commented that DOE's proposed definition is so vague that AHAM believes it could include a wide array of products such as cooking tops in recreational vehicles and tea kettles. (

Id.

) AHAM further requested that if portable cooking products are included in the scope of this rule, DOE ensure it provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on its analysis and proposal. (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that it opposes including portable cooking tops in the scope of the energy conservation standards for cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 31-32) AHAM commented that there is inadequate data to consider standards for portable cooking tops, given that the expanded test sample contains only one portable cooking top with a single cooking zone. (

Id.

) AHAM asserted that given the lack of repeatability and reproducibility data on portable cooking top units, DOE should account for at least a 5.6 percent variation between laboratories, as shown for an electric unit in DOE's test procedure round robin testing, resulting in an IAEC of 216 kWh/year for the tested portable unit that does not meet the proposed standard for electric smooth element cooking tops. (

Id.

) AHAM asserted that portable cooking tops may be eliminated from the market if the proposed standard is finalized. (

Id.

)

Consumers' Research asserted that regulating the energy efficiency of portable gas cooking tops under the same rules as stationary cooking tops is unreasonable and recommended that DOE consider separate rulemakings for each of these product categories. (Consumers' Research, No. 2267 at p. 5) Consumers' Research noted that portable gas cooking tops have a different range of manufacturing costs and constraints than stationary gas cooking tops, they use different types of natural gas, and the cost structure for manufacturing them is different. (

Id.

) Consumers' Research further commented that portable gas cooking tops account for only a tiny percentage of the energy consumed by all gas cooking products and their exclusion would not substantially affect the projected energy efficiency benefits of the proposed rule. (

Id.

)

DOE also received eight comments from individual commenters who expressed concerns about the impact of the standards proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR on barbecues and grills.

As discussed, the Joint Agreement does not specify a definition for portable cooking tops. But, based on the comments received in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has determined that additional clarity is warranted regarding the definition of a portable conventional cooking top. DOE notes that, as proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, a portable conventional cooking top is a category of conventional cooking top. DOE defines a “conventional cooking top” as a category of cooking products that is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. This includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.

Furthermore, as defined, a conventional cooking top is a category of cooking product. DOE defines “cooking products” as consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 430.2.

Therefore, in order for any product to be considered a portable conventional cooking top, it must also satisfy the definition of conventional cooking top and of cooking product, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2.

Specifically, DOE does not consider a tea kettle to be a major household cooking appliance designed to cook or heat different types of food. Therefore, a tea kettle does not meet the definition of a cooking product and cannot be considered a portable conventional cooking top.

Regarding a cooking top in a recreational vehicle (“RV”), DOE notes that EPCA excludes from coverage those consumer products designed solely for use in RVs and other mobile equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). For example, DOE is aware of gas cooking tops that incorporate an ignition system that must be connected to 12 Volts of direct current power, which is commonly used in RV battery systems and is not present in U.S. households, and has determined that these products are designed solely for use in RVs and therefore excluded from coverage. Regarding the definition of portable cooking tops, DOE further notes that although a cooking top that is not designed solely for use in RVs or other mobile equipment may be installed within a vehicle, the product itself is not necessarily designed to be moved from place to place within the installed location. Therefore, the mere fact of installing a cooking top in an RV does not classify the product as a portable conventional cooking top.

Regarding barbecues and grills, DOE does not consider these products to be used as the main sources of cooking within a household. Therefore, DOE determines that barbecues and grills do not satisfy the definition of cooking product.

To ensure clarity in this regard, in this direct final rule, DOE is further specifying that portable cooking tops are portable indoor conventional cooking tops and is defining “portable indoor conventional cooking top” as a conventional cooking top designed (1) for indoor use and (2) to be moved from place to place.

For these reasons, DOE has determined that portable indoor conventional cooking tops are covered products. But as specified in the Joint Agreement, DOE is not adopting standards for these products in this direct final rule. However, gas portable indoor conventional cooking tops, as gas cooking products, remain subject to the existing prohibition on constant burning pilot lights. DOE may consider adopting amended standards for portable indoor conventional cooking tops in a future rulemaking.

See

section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View

Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy conservation standards must be submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that the Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 19 manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products. The Joint Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts (See comment No. 12812). DOE also received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, SDG&E, and the electric utility, SCE (

See

comment No. 12813). As a result, DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view.

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 the Process Rule.

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for consumer conventional cooking products, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking,

see

chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt a new or 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(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for consumer conventional cooking products, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct 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 consumer conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the new or amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except the Recommended TSL,

i.e.,

TSL 1, and 2028-2057 for TSL 1).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of consumer conventional cooking 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 new or amended energy conservation standards.

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 new or amended standards for consumer conventional cooking products. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports 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.

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.

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. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 0.22 quad, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 1.5 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct 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 new or amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) 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.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

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 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)) DOE will transmit a copy of this direct final rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the

Federal Register

in a separate notice.

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.”

In response to the February 2023 SNOPR, ONE Gas commented that economic justification should be based primarily upon consumer LCC savings and that economic benefits associated with highly speculative health benefits should play only a minor role. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 8-9, 15).

As described in the preceding sections, consumer impacts are one of seven factors listed in EPCA for DOE to consider when determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. DOE has and will continue to consider all of these factors in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new or amended 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 consumer conventional cooking products. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses, including relevant comments DOE received during its separate rulemaking to amend the energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products prior to receiving the Joint Agreement.

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 new or amended 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:

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document

. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”)

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

”) for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the

market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this 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 consumer conventional cooking products. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.

See

chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Product Classes

The Joint Agreement specifies seven product classes for consumer conventional cooking products. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10) In particular, the Joint Agreement recommends separate product classes for ranges—a type of combined cooking product that combines a conventional cooking top and a conventional oven—and standalone cooking tops for both electric smooth element cooking tops and gas cooking tops. (

Id.

) In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the Joint Agreement, with updated nomenclature that clarifies that the “range” product classes refer to the cooking top component of any combined cooking product, as listed in Table IV.1.

ER14FE24.008

Because combined cooking products include a conventional cooking top and/or a conventional oven, the conventional cooking top and conventional oven standards apply to the individual components of the combined cooking product.

DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. Nevertheless, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)—which is applicable to direct final rules—DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States currently.

DOE's findings in this regard are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of this document.

EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

a. Portable Indoor Conventional Cooking Tops

As discussed, while DOE notes that portable indoor conventional cooking tops are covered products, the Joint Agreement recommends excluding portable cooking products from the conventional cooking top and conventional oven product classes. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10)

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE proposed standards for conventional cooking tops that would apply to portable models according to their means of heating (gas, electric open (coil) element, or electric smooth element). 88 FR 6818, 6829.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE sought data and information on its initial determination not to differentiate conventional cooking tops on the basis of portability when considering product classes for the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.

Id.

AHAM commented that DOE has done no analysis on portable cooking tops and made little mention of them in the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 28-29) AHAM commented that DOE presents no data on several critical aspects related to portable cooking tops: consumer usage and the possibility that the use case for portable products is likely different than for major appliances in terms of the frequency and duration of use; the efficiency of portable products; test data for portable products and their relative efficiency; the similarities and/or differences between portable products and major appliances to show that it has evaluated whether it is justified to apply the same standard to both types of products or to allow commenters to make such an evaluation; or how the test procedure would apply to portable products, given that the pressure of butane and propane canisters do not meet the specifications of appendix I1. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that if portable cooking products are included in the scope of this rule, they should be in a separate product class given their distinct utility and (for electric products) differently rated voltage. (

Id.

)

As discussed in section III.A of this document, DOE is defining “portable indoor conventional cooking top” as a conventional cooking top designed (1) for indoor use and (2) to be moved from place to place. DOE considers this definition to apply mainly to “hot plate” style cooking products, which are typically electric cooking tops. As such, DOE is aware of no reason that these products cannot be tested to the appendix I1 test procedure. However, as discussed in section III.A of this document, the Joint Agreement specifies that portable indoor conventional cooking tops are not subject to the standards for conventional cooking tops adopted in this direct final rule. DOE notes however, that gas portable indoor conventional cooking tops, as gas cooking products, remain subject to the existing prohibition on constant burning pilot lights.

2. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of conventional cooking tops and of conventional ovens. These technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are technologically feasible. Section 3.12 of chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule includes the detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified for consumer conventional cooking products.

As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule, DOE has performed market research and evaluated available consumer conventional cooking products to assess existing technology options to improve efficiency. The results of this research are discussed in the following sections and in chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule.

a. Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops

The Joint Agreement recommends establishing no standards for electric open (coil) element cooking tops. (Joint Agreement, No. 12811 at p. 10)

For electric open (coil) element cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE did not identify any technology options for improving efficiency. 88 FR 6818, 6840. DOE sought comment on any existing technologies that improve the efficiency of electric open (coil) element cooking tops.

Id.

AHAM agreed with DOE's determination that there are no available technology options for improving efficiency of electric open (coil) element cooking tops and with DOE's decision not to include improved contact conductance as a technology option based on data and information AHAM provided related to pan warpage. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 31) AHAM commented that the unavailability of a viable technology option to improve efficiency is enough on its own to support a determination that a standard for this product class is not technologically feasible. (

Id.

)

ASAP

et al.

recommended that DOE investigate the design considerations that may drive differences in efficiency among open element cooking tops. (ASAP

et al.,

No. 2273 at p. 5) ASAP

et al.

commented that, based on DOE's test data, which included a test unit with an IAEC of 185 kWh/yr., they believe there may be potential efficiency levels beyond the baseline level. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.

recommended that DOE further investigate what may be driving the efficiency differences among electric open element models or consider an efficiency-level approach for this product class. (

Id.

)

In this context “ASAP

et al.”

refers to a joint comment from Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

DOE acknowledges the range of IAEC values among the electric open (coil) element cooking tops in the expanded test sample, but DOE notes that it is unaware of any technology options that can be used to improve these products' efficiency. Therefore, DOE did not identify any incremental efficiency levels.

For these reasons, and in accordance with the recommendation in the Joint Agreement, DOE did not evaluate electric open (coil) element cooking tops as part of the efficiency analysis for this direct final rule. For simplicity, many of the tables and headings in the following sections of this document omit the designation that the electric cooking tops for which energy conservation standards are being considered have “smooth elements.”

b. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops

For electric smooth element cooking tops, considered the technologies listed in Table IV.2.

ER14FE24.009

DOE did not receive any comments regarding technology options for electric smooth element cooking tops in response to the February 2023 SNOPR.

DOE additionally notes that, consistent with the design option evaluated with the proposed EL 2 in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE has evaluated improved resistance heating elements as a design option for electric smooth element cooking tops. 88 FR 6818, 6846.

Consistent with the February 2023 SNOPR, in this direct final rule, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.3 for both electric smooth element cooking top product classes.

ER14FE24.010

c. Gas Cooking Tops

For gas cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.4.

ER14FE24.011

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE evaluated two versions of the optimized burner and grate design option, representative of a minimum of either four or one high input rate burners (“HIR burners”).

88 FR 6818, 6850-6851.

In this direct final rule, DOE defines an HIR burner as a burner rated at or above 14,000 Btu per hour (“Btu/h”).

In the August 2023 NODA, DOE identified an additional type of optimized burner and grate design, in which a burner with optimized turndown capability can be implemented in place of a burner with “non-optimized” turndown capability (

i.e.,

the lowest available simmer setting is more energy consumptive than necessary to hold the test load in a constant simmer close to 90 degrees Celsius (“°C”), resulting in significantly higher energy consumption than for a burner with a simmer setting that holds the test load close to that temperature). 88 FR 50810, 50813.

For the reasons stated in the February 2023 SNOPR, in this direct final rule, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.5 for both gas cooking top product classes.

ER14FE24.012

d. Conventional Ovens

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it considers that intermittent pilot ignition systems would not provide energy savings and did not consider them as a technology option. 88 FR 6818, 6841. DOE requested information on the potential energy savings associated with intermittent pilot ignition systems.

Id.

Strauch supported DOE's decision to not consider intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot ignition systems as a technology option for gas ovens, asserting that for DOE to conduct its own testing on this matter would be a waste of taxpayer money. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 2)

For both gas and electric oven product classes, in this direct final rule, DOE considered the technologies listed in Table IV.6, consistent with the February 2023 SNOPR.

ER14FE24.013

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following 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 commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.

(2)

Practicability to manufacture, install, and servic

e. If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology 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 utilit

y. If a technology is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, or 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)

Safety of technologie

s. 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 technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

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 comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

In conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the screening analysis conducted for the February 2023 SNOPR.

a. Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE tentatively determined that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service halogen heating elements for electric smooth element cooking tops on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of a new standard, and screened out this technology from further consideration. 88 FR 6818, 6842.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE also screened out a subset of low-standby-loss electronic controls, namely those that use “automatic power-down” because this type of low-standby-loss electronic controls may negatively impact product utility.

Id.

In particular, it may result in a loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for combined cooking products, such as ranges. However, it should be noted that the other low-standby-loss electronic controls such as switch-mode power supplies (“SMPSs”) were still analyzed in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE additionally screened out reduced air gap as a technology option because DOE is aware that the air gaps in commercialized radiant heating elements are currently as small as is practicable to manufacture on the scale necessary to serve the cooking products market.

Id.

Furthermore, DOE stated that it is not aware of the magnitude of potential energy savings from this technology.

Id.

DOE requested comment on the magnitude of potential energy savings that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a technology option.

Id.

DOE sought comment on its screening analysis for electric smooth element cooking tops and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.

AHAM stated agreement with DOE's determination to screen out halogen elements in the screening analysis for electric smooth element cooking tops based on its determination that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install, and service halogen heating elements on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 31) AHAM also stated agreement with DOE's determination to screen out a subset of low-standby-loss electronic controls that use “automatic power-down” because they may result in the loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for combined cooking products, such as ranges. (

Id.

)

AHAM disagreed with DOE's continued inclusion of low-standby loss electronic controls such as SMPS and urged DOE to screen out low-standby-loss electronic controls as a technology option because such controls “switch the current at high frequencies” according to DOE, and ranges and cooking tops connected to a ground fault circuit interrupter (“GFCI”) and operating at high frequencies contribute to nuisance tripping, where power is removed from the appliance, even when no electrical hazard exists. (

Id.

at pp. 32-35) AHAM requested that DOE use its expertise and resources to properly investigate this technological incompatibility and advised that if DOE

continues to consider low-standby-loss electronic controls as a feasible technology option, the existing nuisance tripping problems will get worse. (

Id.

)

Strauch commented that SMPSs are not as reliable as linear power supplies, pointing to MIL-HDBK-217

and the Bellcore/Telcordia reliability guide

as evidence. (Strauch, No. 2263 at pp. 2-3) Strauch commented that energy efficiency requirements are degrading lifetimes due to more complex electronic controls, SMPSs, and light-weighting. (

Id.

)

DOE interprets MIL-HDBK-217 as referring to Military Handbook: Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment, last updated in 1995. Available at

global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=MIL-HDBK-217&item_s_key=00058764.

DOE interprets the Bellcore/Telcordia reliability guide as referring to SR-332, Reliability Prediction Procedure for Electronic Equipment, last updated in 2011. Available at

telecom-info.njdepot.ericsson.net/site-cgi/ido/docs.cgi?ID=SEARCH&DOCUMENT=SR-332#ORD.

DOE emphasizes that it only considered design options that are already demonstrated in cooking products available on the market. DOE is aware of the potential for “nuisance tripping” of GFCI circuit protectors by high-frequency components such as induction elements. However, DOE understands that nuisance tripping can generally be mitigated through the use of best practices for reducing leakage current, such as minimizing electrical cable lengths and ensuring that filtered and unfiltered cables are separated to whatever extent possible to reduce leakage current. Additionally, optimizing the variable-frequency controller power filter to reduce total leakage current to levels below the GFCI detection limits can further prevent GFCI tripping. To the extent that the use of additional electronic components is needed in conjunction with the use of design options with high-frequency components (

e.g.,

induction elements), and to the extent that such additional electronic components are provided in electric cooking tops currently on the market that make use of such design options, DOE's teardown analysis captures any additional cost associated with such components.

DOE notes that despite the potential for nuisance tripping, a wide range of appliances on the market today, including cooking products, implement variable-frequency drives in their designs. The inclusion of these variable-frequency drive designs in units on the market leads DOE to conclude that they do not have a significant impact on the consumer utility of these products.

It is not within DOE's purview to regulate health and safety. In this direct final rule analysis, DOE has analyzed induction as a technology option insofar as it is already widely available on the market. Although DOE does not regulate electromagnetic field emissions, the Federal Communications Commission requires industrial, scientific, and medical equipment that emits electromagnetic energy on frequencies within the radio frequency spectrum, including induction cooking tops, to comply with its regulations at 47 CFR part 18 to prevent harmful interference to authorized radio communication services. Additionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifies performance standards for microwave and radio frequency emitting products, but coverage is limited to microwave ovens and thus these standards do not apply to consumer conventional cooking products, including induction cooking tops. 21 CFR 1030.10.

For this direct final rule, DOE used the screening for electric cooking top technology options considered in the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.

b. Gas Cooking Tops

For gas cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE screened out catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces. 88 FR 6818, 6842.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of a wide range of optimized burner and grate designs on the market, some of which may reduce the consumer utility associated with HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates.

Id.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE screened out any optimized burner and grate designs that would reduce consumer utility by only including in its analysis gas cooking tops that include at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates.

Id.

DOE sought comment on its screening analysis for gas cooking tops and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

Section V.B.4 of this document summarizes comments that DOE received regarding the utility provided by certain characteristics of gas cooking tops.

The National Propane Gas Association (“NPGA”) commented that it agrees with the American Public Gas Association (“APGA”) and the American Gas Association's (“AGA”) comments, in which APGA and AGA agreed with DOE's determination that no new standards were justified. (NPGA, No. 2270 at pp. 2-3, 7-8) NPGA commented that it agrees with AHAM's prior comments on this rulemaking, in which AHAM stated that no significant changes have occurred to justify new standards since the April 2009 Final Rule that determined energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products were not justified. (

Id.

) NPGA commented that DOE fails to articulate or demonstrate technological changes for gas cooking tops that would achieve higher efficiencies since the April 2009 Final Rule and that would result in significant conservation of energy as stated by EPCA. (

Id.

) AGA

et al.

echoed these sentiments in response to the August 2023 NODA. (AGA

et al.,

No. 10112 at pp. 3, 11)

“AGA

et al.

” refers to a joint comment from AGA, APGA, NOGA, Spire Inc., Spire Missouri Inc., and Spire Alabama Inc.

AGA commented that DOE's screening analysis is inconsistent and inadequate for use as the primary factor determining the minimum efficiency level for gas cooking tops. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 43-45) AGA commented that gas cooking top design requires a complex engineering process to ensure the consumer has a product that meets all safety standards, meets its required purpose (to cook food), is reliable, long lasting, and easy to maintain and clean, but DOE's language about improving product efficiency through “optimized burner/improved grates” is inadequate. (

Id.

) AGA commented that DOE suggests that realigning gas burners or moving the gas burners closer to the cooking utensils will optimize burners, but this raises concerns, such as the impact on the combustion process, creating hot spots on cooking utensils and electronic ignition systems, cleaning, and addressing changes in fuel gas supply (for example, switching from natural gas to propane). (

Id.

) AGA commented that more evaluation must be documented before DOE's assumptions can be verified as “efficiency improvements.” (

Id.

)

AGA

et al.

commented that gas cooking tops must meet national consensus safety standards for proper operation (

i.e.,

proper combustion under gas pressure variation) and burner characteristics (

i.e.,

burner primary air openings, burner port sizing, variety of input rates, balanced heat distribution on cooking vessels, aesthetics). (AGA

et al.,

No. 10112 at pp. 10-11) AGA

et al.

commented that the features that DOE

identified as being responsible for increased efficiency (

i.e.,

grate weight, flame angle, distance from burner ports) should not be mandated which would limit the freedom of the gas cooking top engineers to design products that are safe and fit consumer needs. (

Id.

)

ONE Gas commented that DOE should evaluate the potential health and safety issues associated with consumer conventional cooking product minimum efficiency standards by addressing burn and cooking fire hazards, which are likely to differ across design options and fuels, and the potential magnitudes of such hazards as DOE projections of market share shifts would suggest. (ONE Gas, No. 2289 at pp. 9-10) ONE Gas commented that these potential safety and health hazards fit well within DOE's role in minimum efficiency standards rulemaking. (

Id.

)

Sub-Zero Group, Inc. (“Sub-Zero”) commented that burner spacing between grate and vessel must be greater for HIR burners to meet critical performance and safety requirements; specifically, heat distribution and reduction of carbon monoxide. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 11) Sub-Zero commented that reducing burner spacing between burner flame and testing vessel can increase efficiency, but flame impingement/contact with the grate and vessel causes flame quenching (cooling), which directly leads to an increase in carbon monoxide levels and other combustion by-products. (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that moving the burner closer to the cookware—as anticipated by DOE's “optimize burners and grates” technology option—should be screened out based on a resulting reduction in consumer utility and safety. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 22-23) AHAM presented a boil-time graph showing that water can be brought to a boil more efficiently, with a lower Btu/h, by moving the burner closer to the cookware, but this design will be essentially useless when cooking foods that require a spectrum of heat inputs as closer burners are unable to adequately reduce heat input. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that testing by one of its members showed that food cooked with only mid-range input rate burners takes longer to cook and that mid-input rate burners, for some foods, provide a lower quality of cooking than HIR burners. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that consumers will lose utility associated with quality of cooking and speed of cooking as manufacturers are forced to homogenize their products and provide mid-range burners to meet the standard. (

Id.

)

AHAM recommended that DOE not rely on European designs as it evaluates whether “burner and grate optimization” is possible while also complying with safety standards such as combustion limits as European safety standard EN 30-1-1 “Domestic cooking appliances burner gas—Part 1-1: Safety—General” generally has higher CO limits than allowed in North America per American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) “Household Cooking Gas Appliances” (“ANSI Z21.1”), which results in limits on-grate weight, flame angle, and distance from the burner to the cookware. (

Id.

at p. 37)

AHAM commented that DOE did not provide sufficient descriptions of the cooking tops in its test sample to allow AHAM to confirm that the units in the test sample do not include any proprietary designs, components, elements, materials, or other intellectual property. (AHAM, No. 10116 at p. 10) AHAM asserted that DOE has deviated from the data quality standards outlined in the Process Rule. (

Id.

at p. 12) AHAM specifically asserted that DOE failed to eliminate problematic design options, as identified by commenters; did not use transparent and robust analytical methods; and did not evaluate safety pertaining to the updated efficiency levels for gas cooking tops. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that DOE should review these deviations from data quality before issuing any final rule. (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that, per EPCA, DOE should not consider consumer-valued features and/or performance attributes as technology options. (

Id.

at pp. 12-13) AHAM commented that DOE does not have the authority to establish standards that would require removal of such features and attributes. (

Id.

)

AHAM asserted that over the course of this rulemaking, DOE has countered itself several times regarding which EPCA-protected features and performance could be eliminated or altered to achieve energy reductions. (

Id.

at pp. 16-19) AHAM commented that, under EPCA, DOE should not consider the removal or reduction of significant consumer-valued features and performance attributes as technology options for improving efficiency and that any technology options that would have that impact should be screened out. (

Id.

)

As discussed, DOE has performed extensive research to evaluate technology changes that have occurred since the April 2009 Final Rule, and notes that updated analysis depends not only on changes in the available technologies, but also on the relative costs and benefits of implementing them.

DOE acknowledges the safety considerations associated with burner spacing, emissions, and fire hazards, but reiterates that the only optimized burner and grate designs evaluated in this direct final rule analysis were those found through DOE's testing and analysis of a full range of products available on the U.S. market to be implemented in products already. DOE notes that ANSI Z21.1, required by many building codes in the United States, specifies safety requirements for all consumer gas cooking products.

In response to stakeholder comments that optimizing burner and grate designs would reduce consumer utility, DOE has only included in its direct final rule engineering analysis gas cooking tops that include multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. DOE further addresses comments related to the impact of the standards on cooking top utility in section V.B.4 of this document.

For this direct final rule, DOE screened out from further consideration catalytic burners, radiant gas burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces for gas cooking tops, consistent with the February 2023 SNOPR analysis.

c. Conventional Ovens

For the same reasons discussed in the SNOPR published on September 2, 2016 (“September 2016 SNOPR”), DOE screened out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no oven door window, optimized burner and cavity design, and reflective surfaces from further analysis for conventional ovens in the February 2023 SNOPR. 88 FR 6818, 6843.

DOE also stated that it recognizes that the estimates for the energy savings associated with improved insulation, improved door seals and reduced vent rate may vary depending on the test procedure, and thus screened out these technology options from further analysis of conventional ovens in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

DOE stated that it will reevaluate the energy savings associated with these technology options if it considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.

Id.

For the same reasons as discussed above for electric smooth element cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE also screened out the use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls.

Id.

DOE stated that it is aware that the use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may negatively impact product utility.

Id.

In particular, the use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may result in a loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for ovens.

However, it should be noted that the other low-standby-loss electronic controls such as SMPSs were still analyzed.

DOE continued to seek comment on the technology options for conventional ovens screened out in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

DOE sought comment on its screening analysis for conventional ovens and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in the February 2023 SNOPR.

AHAM noted that additional high frequency power use beyond SMPSs in an oven, such as low standby loss electronic controls, will exacerbate GFCI nuisance tripping issues. (

Id.

at p. 38)

As discussed previously, DOE is aware of the potential for “nuisance tripping” of GFCI circuit protectors by high-frequency components such as low standby loss electronic controls. However, DOE understands that nuisance tripping can generally be mitigated through the use of best practices. To the extent that the use of additional electronic components is needed in conjunction with the use of design options with high-frequency components (

e.g.,

low standby loss electronic controls), and to the extent that such additional electronic components are provided in electric cooking tops currently on the market that make use of such design options, DOE's teardown analysis captures any additional cost associated with such components.

Strauch commented that DOE should not impose forced convection for conventional ovens, because many consumers may never or rarely use this feature. (Strauch, No. 2263 at p. 3)

AHAM reiterated its comments made in response to the September 2016 SNOPR that forced convection should be screened out because the motor wattage could negate any potential energy savings. (

Id.

) AHAM further commented that convection is not appropriate for cooking all food types, noting that any covered food loads will not benefit from this technology. (

Id.

)

DOE notes that the design option referred to in the February 2023 SNOPR as “forced convection” corresponds to a design option wherein the conventional oven offers a convection mode to the user. Under this design option, the user is not required to use the convection mode, for instance when cooking covered food loads or cakes which do not benefit from convection mode. However, the user would benefit from using the convection mode when baking food loads that benefit from an even distribution of heat, such as roasting vegetables or baking pies, and because the use of convection mode results in lower energy use, as measured by the conventional oven test procedure finalized in the test procedure final rule published on July 2, 2015 (“July 2015 TP Final Rule”).

However, to ensure full clarity regarding this design option and to reflect the fact that the use of convection mode would not be required by users, in this direct final rule, DOE is changing the name of this design option to “convection mode capability.” In the following sections where DOE evaluates convection mode capability as a prescriptive design standard, the prescriptive design standard under evaluation is a requirement for conventional ovens to offer a convection mode.

AHAM also reiterated its comments made in response to the September 2016 SNOPR stating that oven separators should be screened out because they are not a widely available feature. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that this design option essentially relies on consumer use of the feature and without knowing whether consumers do or will use the oven separator, it is impossible to know whether the energy savings would be realized in the field. (

Id.

)

Unless a technology option has proprietary protection or represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, the fact that oven separators are not widely available has no bearing on the screening criteria analyzed by DOE and outlined in the Process Rule. DOE has determined that multiple manufacturers offer oven separators and therefore determines that oven separators do not represent a proprietary technology. AHAM did not provide any information that corresponds to DOE's screening criteria for technology options, and as such DOE is retaining the oven separator technology in this direct final rule.

AHAM reiterated other comments it made in response to the September 2016 SNOPR screening analysis for ovens, including: (1) improved door seals should be screened out, as further improving door seals could lead to a loss of performance due to a loss of sufficient airflow; and (2) reduced vent rates should be screened out as energy gains are negligible and DOE is relying on very old product designs and a test procedure DOE has repealed. (

Id.

) AHAM stated agreement with DOE's screening out of the other technology options. (

Id.

at pp. 38-39)

For this direct final rule, DOE screened out from further consideration the same conventional oven technology options as in the February 2023 SNOPR analysis. DOE notes that the concerns expressed by AHAM regarding technology options for conventional ovens are not applicable at the adopted standard levels as specified in the Joint Agreement.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of this document met all screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the technology options listed in Table IV.7.

ER14FE24.014

DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety). For additional details,

see

chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer conventional cooking products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (

i.e.,

the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (

i.e.,

the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses (

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Efficiency Analysis

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (

i.e.,

the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (

i.e.,

the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the “max-tech” level (particularly in cases where the “max-tech” level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).

In defining the efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the efficiency levels proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR.

For this direct final rule, DOE is adopting a design-option approach supported by testing and supplemented by reverse engineering (

i.e.,

physical teardowns and testing of existing products in the market) to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or design-option combination. The design-option approach is appropriate for consumer conventional cooking products, given the lack of certification data to determine the market distribution of existing products and to identify efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market. Following the request for information (“RFI”) published on February 12, 2014 (“February 2014 RFI”) and the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE also conducted interviews with manufacturers of consumer conventional cooking products to develop a deeper understanding of the various combinations of design options used to increase product efficiency and their associated manufacturing costs.

DOE conducted testing and reverse engineering teardowns on products available on the market. Because there are no performance-based energy conservation standards or energy reporting requirements for consumer conventional cooking products, DOE selected test units based on performance-related features and technologies advertised in product literature.

For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. 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 each product class for both conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels. As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product.

a. Conventional Cooking Tops

Testing

DOE's test sample for this direct final rule was originally tested in support of the February 2023 SNOPR and February 2023 NODA and included 13 electric smooth element cooking tops, the electric smooth element cooking top portion of 7 conventional ranges, 16 gas cooking tops, and the gas cooking top portion of 8 conventional ranges for a total of 44 conventional cooking tops covering all of the product classes considered in this analysis. The test unit characteristics and appendix I1 test results are available in chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct final rule. DOE's analysis did not include any energy consumption associated with downdraft venting systems.

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE developed performance-based baseline efficiency levels for consumer conventional cooking tops using the measured energy consumption of units in the DOE test sample. 88 FR 6818, 6844. DOE determined the cooking top IAEC for each cooking top in the test sample based on the water heating test procedure adopted in the August 2022 TP Final Rule.

Id.

AGA

et al.

stated that it would be helpful for stakeholders to have information regarding which cooking top units included in DOE's analysis are currently available on the market. (AGA

et al.,

No. 766 at pp. 3-4) AGA

et al.

requested that DOE provide this information through the unit identification (

i.e.,

the “SNOPR Unit ID”) for each cooking top product included in DOE's analysis, which would allow stakeholders to confirm that DOE's results accurately reflect the product information. (

Id.

)

NPGA asserted that DOE is unable to confirm that the products evaluated remain on the market, as testing occurred prior to April 2022 and products were purchased prior to May 2018. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8) NPGA asserted that it is not clear whether the tested products remain available on the U.S. market. (

Id.

)

Spire Inc. (“Spire”) asserted that the sample of gas cooking products tested by DOE is small and outdated and that there is no basis to conclude that the products tested are representative of the market. (Spire, No. 2710 at pp. 5-7) Spire further commented that the gas cooking tops in DOE's test sample products were likely manufactured between 2014 and 2018, based on their purchase dates. (

Id.

) Spire stated its concern that DOE has not identified the tested products that are still on the market. (

Id.

)

Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) commented that DOE cannot rely on data gathered from outdated and unavailable products that do not represent the features, characteristics, and performance standards consumers expect from gas cooking products. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 9-10) Whirlpool commented that DOE wrongly assumes that newer models are similar to the tested older models; Whirlpool added that its own catalog experiences substantial turnover in the course of just 5 to 10 years and its older models would likely perform differently than its newer ones under DOE's test procedure. (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that DOE's test sample comprises several old models, some of which are no longer commercially available and therefore would not be considered technologically feasible per sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 8-9) AHAM commented that DOE's continued use of this old test sample conflicts with DOE's statement that it considers commercially available products or working prototypes in its evaluation. (

Id.

) AHAM stated disagreement with DOE's statements in the February 2023 NODA that if a product was on the market, it can be included in the analysis—that could be the case if it can be shown that the model was replaced with a similar model that retains similar efficiency performance and similar technology options. (

Id.

) But, AHAM added, if a product is removed from the market and no longer commercially available, it should be eliminated from the sample because it may have been removed for reliability or quality issues or consumer dissatisfaction. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that without data that indicates why a particular model that is no longer commercially available should remain in the test sample, DOE should remove the old models from its test sample and ensure that the test sample informing this analysis consists only of commercially available products (or working prototypes). (

Id.

)

Although other models in DOE's test sample may no longer be on the market, DOE notes that manufacturers of major home appliances update their model numbers regularly, in some cases as frequently as every 1 to 2 years. In DOE's experience of regularly monitoring the market for major home appliances, including consumer conventional cooking products, the model number changes that occur from year to year in most cases do not reflect technological changes that would impact the product's measured energy consumption. Regardless, test results for models that are discontinued over the course of a DOE rulemaking timeline remain applicable in conducting the analysis in accordance with EPCA requirements, because such models incorporate technologically feasible design options that manufacturers may use to achieve the corresponding efficiency levels in commercial products.

DOE cannot comment on whether the units in the AHAM test sample are available on the market because AHAM did not provide DOE with model number information. However, at the time of the direct final rule analysis, 15 of the 30 units in the expanded test sample for which DOE has model information and that meet the standards finalized in this direct final rule, are available for purchase; DOE notes that 7 of these 15 models have multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates.

AHAM commented it found confusing the addition to DOE's test sample of three new gas cooking top units that did not follow the same criteria as in its February 2023 SNOPR analysis and the conflicting statements and methodology DOE employed in the February 2023 NODA (and in the media). (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 53-54)

As stated in the February 2023 NODA, the additional information was intended to clarify the analysis. 88 FR 12603, 12604. Specifically, DOE provided the IAEC values for the three additional units to substantiate its statement that gas cooking tops that do not include HIR burners or continuous cast-iron grates have efficiencies higher than the EL 2 level that DOE defined in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

at 88 FR 12605.

Further, DOE published the August 2023 NODA to provide an updated analysis of the gas cooking top market in light of the new data provided by stakeholders in response to the February 2023 SNOPR and February 2023 NODA.

AHAM requested information on whether DOE has additional data for the units in its test sample that were tested as part of the test procedure rulemaking and, if so, AHAM requested that DOE provide these additional test results. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 9-10) AHAM commented that such data could illuminate the relevance of test variation to DOE's standards selection. (

Id.

)

In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE determined that its test results demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the finalized test procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. To the extent that any additional tests beyond those used in this direct final rule analysis were conducted on a given cooking top, the results were used in the analysis for the August 2022 TP Final

Rule. Test reports for these tests are available in the docket for that rulemaking.

Available at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document.

NPGA commented that it does not believe DOE's testing conducted in support of the February 2023 SNOPR can be relied upon when it was conducted prior to publishing the August 2022 TP Final Rule and the February 2023 Correcting Amendments. (NPGA, No. 2270 at p. 8) NPGA stated that by relying on testing methods adopted prior to these changes, DOE's foundation for its test method must be called into question. (

Id.

)

As discussed, all conventional cooking top testing conducted by DOE in support of the February 2023 SNOPR, and of this direct final rule was conducted according to the test procedure at appendix I1, as finalized. Despite some of the testing occurring prior to the publication of the August 2022 TP Final Rule, all testing was confirmed to be compliant with appendix I1 as published prior to its incorporation in the analysis. DOE further notes that neither the errors and omissions nor the corrections in the February 2023 Correcting Amendments affected the substance of the rulemaking, or any conclusions reached in support of the August 2022 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 7846.

Furthermore, as discussed in the August 2023 NODA and later in this document, DOE received additional stakeholder test data which DOE incorporated into its analysis as part of the “expanded data set,” which was used as the basis for the updated efficiency levels presented in the August 2023 NODA and analyzed in this direct final rule.

AHAM requested that DOE explain why certain gas cooking tops in DOE's test sample have different IAEC values in the August 2023 NODA compared to the February 2023 SNOPR. (AHAM, No. 10116 at pp. 4-5) AHAM commented that DOE should indicate if the updated analysis in the August 2023 NODA was based on the updated IAEC values. (

Id.

) AHAM requested that DOE publish a response on the docket, prior to a final rule, as to whether the updated IAEC values are a result of test variation, error, or additional testing, and provide opportunity for stakeholder comment. (

Id.

)

DOE appreciates AHAM's comment and notes that as part of its review of the engineering analysis for gas cooking tops prior to the publication of the August 2023 NODA, DOE corrected a data processing error that occurred in calculating the annual energy consumption (“AEC”) of seven units in its test sample. At the time of the August 2023 NODA, DOE published the full expanded test sample for gas cooking tops, including this calculation error correction. DOE confirms that the analysis for the August 2023 NODA and for this direct final rule was based upon the IAEC values published in the August 2023 NODA.

AGA

et al.

commented that the standard proposed in February 2023 SNOPR was based on limited product testing unsupported by any other existing body of relevant product efficiency data. (AGA

et al.,

No. 10112 at p. 6) AGA

et al.

commented that, given the impact of the expanded data set on the baseline level analyzed in the August 2023 NODA, as compared to the February 2023 SNOPR, it is unclear how an even further expanded data set would impact the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops. (

Id.

)

DOE has performed extensive testing in support of the energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. Furthermore, DOE's analysis for this direct final rule takes into account all additional stakeholder test data received in response to the February 2023 SNOPR. DOE determines that its expanded test data set is a representative sample and sufficient to support its analysis for the standards adopted in this direct final rule.

Electric Cooking Tops

The Joint Agreement recommended a standard level for both electric smooth element cooking top product classes of 207 kWh/year that is equivalent to the IAEC at EL 1 defined in the August 2023 NODA and February 2023 SNOPR.

The baseline IAEC in this direct final rule was initially established in the February 2023 SNOPR. To establish the baseline IAEC values for electric cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE set the baseline cooking top IAEC equal to the sum of the maximum cooking top AEC observed in the dataset and the maximum annual combined low-power mode energy consumption (“E

TLP

”) observed in the dataset. 88 FR 6818, 6844.

DOE then reviewed the AEC and E

TLP

values for the electric smooth element cooking tops in its test sample and identified three higher efficiency levels that can be achieved without sacrificing clock functionality.

Id.

at 88 FR 6845.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined EL 1 for electric smooth element cooking tops based on the low-standby-loss electronic controls design option.

Id.

As discussed above, DOE defined the baseline efficiency assuming the highest AEC would be paired with the highest E

TLP

observed in its test sample.

Id.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE stated that it is aware of many methods employed by manufacturers to achieve lower E

TLP

, including by changing from a linear power supply to an SMPS, by dimming the control screen's default brightness, by allowing the clock functionality to turn off after a period of inactivity, and by removing the clock from the cooking top altogether.

Id.

DOE defined EL 1 using the lowest measured E

TLP

among the units in its test sample with clock functionality, paired with the baseline AEC, to avoid any potential loss of utility from setting a standard based on a unit without clock functionality.

Id.

In the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined EL 2 for electric smooth element cooking tops using the lowest measured AEC (highest efficiency) among radiant cooking tops in its sample and the same E

TLP

as EL 1.

Id.

DOE noted that, this AEC value can also be reached by units using induction technology.

Id.

To determine the highest measured efficiency for electric smooth element cooking tops, “max tech” or EL 3 in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE calculated the sum of the lowest measured AEC in its test sample of electric smooth element cooking tops, which represented induction technology, and the same E

TLP

as EL 1.

Id.

Table IV.8 shows the efficiency levels for electric smooth element cooking tops proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR.

ER14FE24.015

DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the proposed baseline and incremental efficiency levels for electric cooking tops.

Id.

at 88 FR 6844-6845.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) supported DOE's methodology for analyzing AEC and E

TLP

separately when determining the efficiency levels for baseline electric smooth element cooking tops. (Samsung, No. 2291 at p. 2) Samsung supported DOE's proposed efficiency levels for electric cooking tops. (

Id.

) Samsung commented that standby power is typically consumed by specific features (

e.g.,

clocks, timers, electronic displays), and that because DOE identified low-standby-loss electronic controls for EL 1, it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers will use the lowest level of E

TLP

to meet EL 1. (

Id.

) Samsung commented that EL 1 also avoids consumer utility loss by maintaining the clock functionality. (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that DOE's method for determining the baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops is flawed because it adds active-mode energy use and standby-mode energy use from different units, which is not a representative approach. (AHAM, No. 2285 at pp. 30-31) AHAM commented that product design is holistic and theoretical energy use should not be assumed based on tests from different units as was DOE's method. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that DOE should follow its usual, more representative methodology of selecting the least efficient single unit, despite the flaws resulting from the methodology's basis on a test sample. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that DOE can minimize this inherent flaw by ensuring its test sample is as broad and representative of the market as possible through the inclusion of AHAM's data. (

Id.

) AHAM added that DOE should rectify the lack of representativeness of its current sample, even with AHAM's test data included, before proceeding to a final rule. (

Id.

)

DOE has determined that adding active-mode energy use and standby-mode energy use from different units to determine baseline efficiency levels for conventional cooking tops is warranted in order to evaluate the most conservative baseline efficiency level so as to allow manufacturers to preserve the utility associated with clock functionality.

AHAM stated its opposition to DOE's proposed standard for smooth electric cooking tops and added that it would oppose any proposed standard more stringent than DOE's proposed level. (

Id.

at pp. 42-43) However, AHAM commented that it does not oppose standards for these products so long as the standard takes into account test procedure variation and the reality that manufacturers will not certify products at the tested values upon which DOE bases its analysis. (

Id.

) AHAM suggested that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level for electric smooth element cooking tops that is between EL 1 and the baseline, and requested that DOE account for test variation and conservative rating by applying an additional 5 percent to the evaluated efficiency level. (

Id.

)

In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE determined that its test results demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the finalized test procedure. 87 FR 51492, 51497. DOE notes that although it is not including a “buffer” in its analysis, nothing in DOE's analysis prevents manufacturers from choosing to design a buffer into their own products' rated values.

Regarding AHAM's suggestion that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level, DOE is not aware of any design options that would justify such an efficiency level.

As discussed, DOE received additional electric smooth element cooking top test data from AHAM and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) in response to the February 2023 SNOPR. In the August 2023 NODA, DOE stated that these additional data are consistent with DOE's tentative determination in the February 2023 SNOPR regarding efficiency levels for these products. 88 FR 50810, 50811. Therefore, in the August 2023 NODA, DOE maintained the efficiency levels for electric smooth element cooking tops that were proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

DOE sought comment on the efficiency levels for electric smooth element cooking tops in the August 2023 NODA.

Id.

DOE did not receive any such comments.

For the reasons discussed in the February 2023 SNOPR and August 2023 NODA, and consistent with the recommendations in the Joint Agreement, DOE analyzed for this direct final rule the efficiency levels for both electric smooth element cooking top product classes that were proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR, as shown in Table IV.9.

ER14FE24.016

Gas Cooking Tops

The Joint Agreement recommended a standard level for both gas cooking top product classes of 1,770 kBtu/year.

As discussed, to establish the baseline IAEC values for cooking tops, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE set the baseline cooking top integrated annual energy consumption (

i.e.,

IAEC) equal to the sum of the maximum cooking top active annual energy consumption (

i.e.,

AEC) observed in the dataset for the analyzed product class and the maximum combined low-power mode annual energy consumption (

i.e.,

TLP

) observed in the dataset for the analyzed product class. 88 FR 6818, 6844.

DOE noted that the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops evaluated in the February 2023 SNOPR would replace the current prescriptive standards for gas cooking tops which prohibits the use of a constant burning pilot light.

Id.

As such, DOE's proposed standard for gas cooking tops would be only a performance standard. DOE noted that constant burning pilot lights consume approximately 2,000 kBtu/year and even the proposed baseline considered efficiency level of 1,775 kBtu/year for gas cooking tops would not be achievable by products if they were to incorporate a constant burning pilot light.

Id.

DOE further notes that the updated baseline efficiency level of 1,900 kBtu/year for gas cooking tops considered in the August 2023 NODA, as described later in this section, would also not be achievable by products incorporating a constant burning pilot light. Therefore, a new performance standard for gas cooking tops would preclude the possibility of any product designs with constant burning pilot lights. The existing prescriptive standard would remain in place until the compliance date of the new and amended standards finalized in this direct final rule.

For the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE considered efficiency levels associated with optimized burner and grate design, but only insofar as the efficiency level was achievable with at least one HIR burner

and continuous cast-iron grates. 88 FR 6818, 6845. DOE stated that it is aware that some methods used by gas cooking top manufacturers to achieve lower AEC can result in a smaller number of HIR burners.

Id.

HIR burners provide unique consumer utility and allow consumers to perform high heat cooking activities such as searing and stir-frying. DOE stated that it is also aware that some consumers derive utility from continuous cast-iron grates, such as the ability to use heavy pans, or to shift cookware between burners without needing to lift them.

Id.

Because of this, in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE defined the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops such that all efficiency levels are achievable with at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-iron grates.

As discussed, DOE defines a high input rate burner as a burner with an input rate greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h.

DOE's testing showed that energy use was correlated to burner design and cooking top configuration (

e.g.,

grate weight, flame angle, distance from burner ports to the cooking surface) and could be reduced by optimizing the design of the burner and grate system.

Id.

DOE reviewed the test data for the gas cooking tops in its test sample and identified two efficiency levels associated with improving the burner and grate design that corresponded to different design criteria. DOE defined EL 1 and EL 2 for gas cooking tops using the same E

TLP

as used for the baseline efficiency level.

Table IV.10 shows the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops evaluated in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

at 88 FR 6846.

ER14FE24.017

DOE sought comment on the methodology and results for the proposed baseline and incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops in the February 2023 SNOPR.

Id.

at 88 FR 6844-6845.

AGA

et al.

requested more information regarding DOE's proposal to limit the EL 2 level to 1,204 kBtu/year, including the specific design changes or enhancements to the gas cooking tops needed to attain EL 2, the data and methodology used to propose EL 2 as the max-tech efficiency level for gas cooking tops, and DOE's justification for the proposed minimum requirement of 1,204 kBtu/year. (AGA

et al.,

No. 766 at p. 3)

As noted in the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE's testing showed that energy use was correlated to burner design and cooking top configuration (

e.g.,

grate weight, flame angle, distance from burner ports to the cooking surface) and could be reduced by optimizing the design of the burner and grate system. DOE reviewed the test data for the gas cooking tops in its test sample and identified two efficiency levels associated with improving the burner and grate design that corresponded to different design criteria. 88 FR 6818, 6845. The full dataset for gas cooking tops may be found in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

DOE provided this response to AGA

et al.

on April 13, 2023.

See

docket item No. 1069.

AGA asserted that the February 2023 SNOPR exceeds DOE's authority by effectively imposing design requirements because cooking tops with more than one HIR burner cannot comply with the proposal and there is no real evidence that products with even one HIR burner and cast-iron grates could satisfy the standard proposed in the February 2023 SNOPR based on issues with the test results. (AGA, No. 2279 at pp. 26-28) AGA commented that EPCA allows DOE to issue a performance standard or a design requirement, but not both. (

Id.

) AGA asserted that the February 2023 SNOPR's limitation on the number and types of burners is both a design and a performance standard and is therefore unlawful. (

Id.

) AGA stated that the D.C. Circuit adopted a similar rationale in

Hearth, Patio, & Barbecue Association

DOE,

which vacated and remanded DOE's standards for direct heating equipment when the court rejected

DOE's pretextual argument that it had not imposed a design requirement for a class of products that were ineligible for design requirements. (

Id.

) AGA noted that the rule gave manufacturers the option of meeting either DOE's efficiency standard or a third-party standard that would have required elimination of constant burning pilot lights. (

Id.

)

DOE reiterates that the standard level recommended for gas cooking tops in the Joint Agreement and established in this direct final rule is a performance requirement and not a design standard. As stated, this IAEC level can be met by a variety of cooking tops with a variety of burner input rate configurations. Chapter 5 of the TSD for this direct final rule includes examples of cooking tops in the expanded test sample that meet the established performance standard.

AHAM commented that it noticed an error in DOE's standby power analysis for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 30) AHAM commented that to calculate highest measured efficiency, DOE added the lowest measured active energy consumption to the highest standby energy consumption of all units, but that DOE seemed to be adding values with different units of measure (kBtu + kWh) and that a correct calculation would result in an EL 2 of 1,277 kBtu/year. (

Id.

)

DOE appreciates AHAM's comment and notes that this error was corrected in its analysis for the August 2023 NODA.

AHAM noted that it used DOE's definition of HIR burner—input rate greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h—but questioned this as the appropriate threshold for the definition since DOE provided no justification for the selection in the form of consumer data or other evidence. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 3) AHAM requested that DOE present the data supporting this threshold to avoid its analysis being seen as arbitrary. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that it presents data on consumer preference that show that higher burner input rates have consumer utility—specifically, HIR burners provide quicker times to boil, an important consumer performance feature. (

Id.

at pp. 17-19)

Whirlpool requested that DOE provide data showing that gas cooking tops and ranges with a single HIR burner of 14,000 Btu/h and above are sufficient to meet consumers' cooking needs across all types of gas cooking products (

e.g.,

entry-level, mass-market, and high-output products). (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at pp. 6-7) If this is not possible, Whirlpool recommended that DOE reconsider the 14,000 Btu threshold proposed, as Whirlpool asserts that DOE's own data reveal that this is not representative of HIR burners on the market, noting that most models in DOE's data set have at least one burner with an input rate between 18,000 Btu/h and 25,000 Btu/h. (

Id.

) Whirlpool commented that DOE's proposed definition of HIR burners would include models that may not adequately perform certain types of cooking such as boiling, stir-frying, and searing, that is more easily done at high temperatures.

Throughout the history of this rulemaking, starting with the February 2014 RFI, DOE has considered HIR burners to be those rated at or above 14,000 Btu/h. 79 FR 8337, 8340. DOE based this determination on the April 2009 Final Rule and a report published as part of the September 1998 Final Rule.

74 FR 16040; 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009). DOE further notes that the cooking product industry has not standardized a threshold for HIR burners within publicly available marketing material. For example, Consumer Reports considers high-power burners to be those rated above 11,000 Btu/h.

According to Whirlpool's website, it considers HIR burners to be rated above 12,000 Btu/h.

DOE additionally notes that in a comment submitted in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, Whirlpool referred to large burners as those rated above 15,000 Btu/h. (Whirlpool, No. 2284 at p. 7) Considering the apparent lack of consensus regarding a threshold that constitutes an HIR burner, and the range of possible thresholds apparent through publicly available sources, DOE has determined the use of 14,000 Btu/h to be a reasonable threshold for distinguishing HIR burners for the purposes of its analysis.

Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products, Volume 2: Potential Impact of Alternative Efficiency Levels for Residential Cooking Products. Available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2006-STD-0070-0004.

See

www.consumerreports.org.

“How Many BTUs Are Needed for a Gas Range | Whirlpool”. Available at

www.whirlpool.com/blog/kitchen/how-many-btus-for-gas-range.html

(last accessed August 11, 2023).

AHAM recommended that DOE evaluate additional gap-fill levels for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 2285 at p. 44) AHAM commented that for these gap-fill levels, DOE should also add 5 percent to the level to account for test variation and conservative rating. (

Id.

)

Sub-Zero asserted that equity between electric and gas cooking top standards cannot be attained without a gap fill between EL 1 and baseline for gas cooking tops. (Sub-Zero, No. 2140 at p. 11)

As discussed, in response to the February 2023 SNOPR, DOE received additional gas cooking top test data from AHAM and PG&E that prompted DOE to review the engineering analysis—including the defined efficiency levels—for gas cooking tops as presented in the February 2023 SNOPR. In the August 2023 NODA, DOE presented updated efficiency levels for gas cooking tops based on its new expanded data set. 88 FR 50810, 50812. The following paragraphs summarize the key updates to the analysis for gas cooking tops that DOE presented in the August 2023 NODA.

In the August 2023 NODA, the updates to the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops included (1) an updated E

TLP

estimate at each efficiency level for gas cooking tops, equal to the average of the non-zero E

TLP

values measured in the expanded test sample; (2) an updated definition of the baseline efficiency level, based on the least efficient AEC value in the expanded test sample, which is less efficient than the least efficient AEC in the February 2023 SNOPR test sample; (3) an updated definition of EL 1, representing the most energy efficient AEC among units with multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates that would not preclude any combination of other features mentioned by manufacturers (

e.g.,

different nominal unit widths, sealed burners, at least one low input rate burner (“LIR burner”),

multiple dual-stacked and/or multi-ring HIR burners, and at least one extra-high input rate burner), as demonstrated by products from multiple manufacturers in the expanded test sample; and (4) an updated definition of the max-tech efficiency level based on the most efficient AEC value in the expanded test sample, achievable with multiple HIR burners (rather than a single HIR burner, used as the basis for the February 2023 SNOPR) and continuous cast-iron grates.

Id.

In this direct final rule, DOE defines an LIR burner as a burner with an input rate below 6,500 Btu/h.

As discussed in section IV.B of this document, to develop incremental efficiency levels for gas cooking tops, DOE analyzed the distribution of AEC values among only the cooking tops in the expanded test sample that have multiple HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. DOE did not consider any efficiency levels that would result in the lack of multiple HIR burners or continuous cast-iron grates. In the direct final rule TSD, DOE presents the results for all tested gas cooking tops, because these results are also used to develop

the market share distributions (see section IV.F.8 of this document).

Table IV.11 shows the efficiency levels for gas cooking tops that DOE evaluated for the August 2023 NODA.

Id.

ER14FE24.018

DOE sought comment on the methodology and results

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.