[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48038-48057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23886]
[[Page 48037]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Energy
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
_______________________________________________________________________
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation
Standards for Electric Cooking Products (Electric Cooktops, Electric
Self-Cleaning-Ovens, and Microwave Ovens); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 48038]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EE-RM-S-97-700]
RIN 1904-AA84
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Energy
Conservation Standards for Electric Cooking Products (Electric
Cooktops, Electric Self-Cleaning-Ovens, and Microwave Ovens)
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes
energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances
and requires the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) to administer
an energy conservation program for these products. The National
Appliance Energy Conservation Act amendments require DOE to consider
amending the energy conservation standards for cooking products. DOE
today promulgates this final rule to address the energy conservation
standard for electric cooking products (including microwave products)
and substitute the term ``cooking products'' for the current, obsolete
term ``kitchen ranges and ovens.'' DOE is not addressing at this time
gas cooking products because it has not completed its analysis of the
relevant issues.
DOE has determined that there would be no significant conservation
of energy for electric cooktops, electric self-cleaning ovens and
microwave ovens, and standards would not be economically justified.
Therefore, the Department will not add new standards for these
products. The Department, however, is amending its regulations to
substitute the name ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' with ``cooking
products'.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective October 8, 1998.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Technical Support Document (TSD) for these
products may be read at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room,
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, room 1E-190, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-3142,
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Copies of the TSD may be obtained from: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20585. (202) 586-9127.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathi Epping, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-43, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-7425,
or Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,
(202) 586-9507.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
a. Authority
b. Background
II. Discussion of Electric Cooking Products Comments
a. Classes
b. Design Options
c. Other Comments
d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft Report and Supplemental
Analysis
III. Analysis of Electric Cooking Products Standards
a. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
b. Significance of Energy Savings
c. Economic Justification
d. Payback Period
e. Conclusion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
a. Review under the National Environmental Policy Act
b. Review under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
c. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
f. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
g. Federalism Review
h. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
i. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996
V. DOJ Views on the Proposed Rule
I. Introduction
a. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), P.L. 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (NECPA), P.L. 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act (NAECA), P.L. 100-12, by the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988), P.L. 100-357, and the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), P.L. 102-486 1 created
the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than
Automobiles. The consumer products subject to this program are called
``covered products.'' The covered products specified by statute include
kitchen ranges and ovens. EPCA, Sec. 322, 42 U.S.C. 6292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation
Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, is referred
to in this notice as the ``EPCA.'' Part B of Title III is codified
at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For kitchen ranges and ovens, EPCA prescribed an initial Federal
energy conservation standard effective in 1990 and specified that the
Department shall publish a final rule no later than January 1, 1992, to
determine if the 1990 standards should be amended. EPCA, Sec. 325(h),
42 U.S.C. 6295(h). Any new or amended standard is required to be
designed so as to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
that is technologically feasible and economically justified. EPCA,
Sec. 325(o)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). The Secretary may not
prescribe any amended standard which increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a
covered product. EPCA, Sec. 325(o)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) provides that DOE, in determining whether a
standard is economically justified, must determine whether the benefits
of the standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest extent
practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on
the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
(2) 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, in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result
directly from the imposition of the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
[[Page 48039]]
In addition, section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) establishes a rebuttable
presumption of economic justification in instances where the Secretary
determines 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.''
The Department analyzes the merits of efficiency improvements for
each class of product independently. The Department applies the same
criteria to determine the technological feasibility and economic
justification of each product class, regardless of fuel type.
b. Background
The current standard (effective January 1, 1990) states that
kitchen ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord shall not be
equipped with a constant burning pilot light.
In 1990, DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
with regard to standards for nine covered products, including electric
kitchen ranges and ovens. 55 FR 39624 (September 28, 1990) (hereinafter
referred to as the September 1990 advance notice). The September 1990
advance notice presented the product classes that DOE planned to
analyze and provided a detailed discussion of the analytical
methodology and analytical models that the Department expected to use.
On March 4, 1994, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) concerning eight products, including the kitchen ranges and
ovens. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the
Proposed Rule.) The Department proposed that the annual energy use of
kitchen ranges and ovens shall be the sum of the annual energy use of
any of the following components incorporated into the kitchen range and
oven and shall not exceed the allowable sum of energy usages for those
components listed in Table 1-1. These proposed standards were estimated
to save 5.9 quads.
Table 1-1.--Proposed Standards Levels for Kitchen Ranges and Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual energy use, effective
Kitchen range and oven component as of September 10, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Electric ovens, self-cleaning......... 267 kWh.
2. Electric ovens, non-self-cleaning..... 218 kWh.
3. Gas ovens, self-cleaning.............. 1.64 MMBtu.
4. Gas ovens, non-self-cleaning.......... 1.14 MMBtu.
5. Microwave ovens....................... 233 kWh.
6. Electric cooktop, coil element........ 260 kWh.
7. Electric cooktop, smooth element...... 294 kWh.
8. Gas cooktop........................... 1.71 MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received over 8,000 comments during the comment period on the
1994 Proposed Rule and from participants at the public hearings held in
Washington, DC on April 5-7, 1994 and June 7-8, 1994. 59 comments dealt
specifically with kitchen ovens, cooktops, and microwave ovens.
After reviewing the comments on the proposed standards for kitchen
cooktops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens, the Department
concluded that a number of significant issues were raised which
required additional analysis. In 1995, the Department revised the
analyses regarding kitchen cooktops, ovens, and microwave ovens to
account for the comments and data received during the public comment
period. (This revised analysis became the basis for the 1996 Draft
Report.)
A moratorium was placed on publication of proposed or final rules
for appliance efficiency standards as part of the FY 1996
appropriations legislation. Pub. L. 104-134. That moratorium expired on
September 30, 1996.
In 1995 and 1996, the Department conducted a review of its process
for developing appliance energy efficiency standards. This review
resulted in the publication of a final rule, entitled ``Procedures for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products'' (hereinafter referred to as the Process Rule). 61
FR 36973 (July 15, 1996). Although the new procedures in the Process
Rule do not apply to this rulemaking (61 FR at 36980) DOE has employed
an approach consistent with the new procedures in completing work on
this rule. In keeping with the new process, and based on comments
received in response to the Proposed Rule, DOE distributed for comment
a Draft Report on the Potential Impact of Alternative Energy Efficiency
Levels for Residential Cooking Products (hereinafter referred to as
Draft Report). The Draft Report contained DOE's revised analysis, begun
in 1995, examining five alternative efficiency levels. The revised
analysis drastically reduced the amount of energy which could be saved
at each efficiency level. The Draft Report was distributed to a mailing
list that included all of the commenters on the proposed rule on
kitchen cooktops, ovens, and microwave ovens on May 5, 1996. (EE-RM-S-
97-700 No. 1 and No. 2.) The letter invited comment on the Draft Report
by no later than July 1, 1996. During June and July 1996, DOE received
three comments on the Draft Report and related issues.
The analysis in the Draft Report indicates that establishing new or
revised standards for microwave ovens is not economically justified
because the payback period exceeds the life of the product and would
produce increased life-cycle costs and a negative net present value.
The analysis in the Draft Report and the comments received prompted
further examination of gas cooktops, gas ovens, and electric non-self-
cleaning ovens. DOE prepared an analysis to supplement the Draft Report
that focuses exclusively on the possible elimination of standing pilot
lights for gas products and improving non-self-cleaning conventional
electric ovens by venting and insulating them like self-cleaning
electric ovens. The supplemental analysis used the latest available
data from AHAM regarding the trends over time of shares of sales of
non-self-cleaning conventional ovens and gas products with pilot
lights. It also used the latest utility price forecasts from the Annual
Energy Outlook of the Energy Information Administration, AEO 97, and
the Gas Research Institute, GRI 97.
In a Federal Register Notice of limited reopening of the record and
opportunity for public comment (63 FR 9975) dated February 27, 1998,
the Department reopened the comment period for cooking products for 30
days. This notice announced the availability of the supplemental
analysis and gave indication of the prescriptive standard the
Department was inclined to promulgate in the final rule. The notice
also indicated the Department's intent to change the name of this
rulemaking from ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' to ``cooking products.''
This change was made because the term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' does
not accurately describe the products considered which include
conventional ranges, cooktops and ovens and microwave ovens.
Due to a request by the American Gas Association (AGA) for
additional time,
[[Page 48040]]
this notice was followed by another notice reopening the comment period
through April 28, 1998. The Department received 31 comments in response
to these notices. Based on the comments to the Reopening Notice that
identified significant issues surrounding gas cooking products, DOE
decided to sever the electric cooking products from the gas cooking
products in this rulemaking.
II. Discussion of Electric Cooking Products Comments
This section addresses comments to the 1994 Proposed Rule, the 1996
Draft Report, the Supplemental Analysis, and the 1998 reopening notice.
2 This section only addresses comments relating to electric
cooking products and does not discuss gas cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Comments with unspecified docket numbers belong to docket
number EE-RM-90-201. This docket contains the September 1990 advance
notice and the 1994 Proposed Rule. Docket No. EE-RM-S-97-700
contains the 1996 Draft Report, comments to the 1996 Draft Report,
comments to the 1998 reopening notice and the supplemental analysis.
Comments from this docket are specified with Docket number EE-RM-S-
97-700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Classes
Microwave Ovens
D. Wilson (Frigidaire, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 268) commented that
heating elements are a utility to Frigidaire's customers and therefore
require an additional product class for microwave ovens. Les Harris
(Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 285-288)
commented that there should be separate product classes for the
convection and browner type microwave ovens based on their specific
utility, as well as additional product classes for different cavity
sizes. Jack Weizeorick (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 258-260) also
argued for two product classes: conventional microwave ovens with and
without browning elements. He based this argument on the test procedure
which he says does not measure the energy that the browning element
absorbs from the microwaves. Mr. Weizeorick also argued for a third
product class to include combination microwave/convection ovens.
Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) urged DOE to define a
specific product class for convection/microwave ovens because of the
browning utility which causes a loss of about four percentage points of
efficiency. Frigidaire Company (No. 544 at 2) submitted that microwave
ovens with browning elements need a separate product class because its
data shows the browner versions are consistently lower in efficiency by
2.0 percent.
Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 5-7) argued
that DOE's approach of a single class microwave oven is too simplistic
because there are certain design constraints in the various type
products that have a significant effect on their design and efficiency.
They commented that the following design differences in microwave ovens
justify additional product classes: (a) (structurally) fixed ovens, (b)
portable ovens, (c) heating elements in the oven which absorb microwave
energy, (d) convection ovens where the heating elements are not located
in the cooking cavity, and (e) volume efficiency relationships for
portable ovens only. Consequently, AHAM recommended the adoption of
five classes of microwave ovens, as follows:
1. Portable Microwave Only--Less than 0.8 ft 3 total cavity
volume
2. Portable Microwave Only--0.8 to 1.19 ft 3 total cavity
volume
3. Portable Microwave Only--1.2 ft 3 total cavity volume
4. Portable Microwave/Thermal
5. Built-in (Fixed)
Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 5) agreed with these classes,
and Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 2) reiterated in his
1996 comments the need for separate microwave oven classes in future
rulemakings. O.P. Clay (Sharp, No. 521 at 2), relying on data supplied
to DOE, supported at least three product classes: small cavity size,
large cavity size, and convection/microwave ovens. C.M. Walsh
(Thermador, No. 622 at 1) recommended that microwave ovens with a
usable volume greater than 1.75 cubic feet be put into a separate
category that is excluded from the standard.
Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at
287-288) requested exclusion of the microwave standard for convection
and browner type microwave ovens because of the small number that are
sold and because they provide a specific utility different from the
standard microwave oven.
The Department believes more efficiency/cost data is needed to
separate the ovens into separate product classes. However, because DOE
is not promulgating standards for microwave ovens in this rule (see
section III. e.), the Department does not believe it is necessary to
examine this issue at this time.
Commercial-type Products for Residential Use
L. Durden (Viking Range Corp, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 180, 189, 196,
197 and No. 866 at 1) requested a separate energy classification for
commercial-type home cooking products. He argued that the replacement
alternative for these products would be purely commercial products
which consume large amounts of energy and are not safe for home use. A
purely commercial range if placed next to cabinetry will not pass the
heat requirements (will cause scorching and burning of the cabinetry).
Mr. Durden stated that there is a precedent for separate product
classes for through-the-door service refrigerators and larger-sized
refrigerator freezers, and consequently, a similar consideration
(separate energy class) should be considered for commercial-type home
cooking products. G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 219)
suggested DOE have a more specific definition in regard to commercial-
type versus standard products. AHAM (AHAM, No. 001 at 14-15) and R.
Zipkin (Russell Range, Transcript, Jun. 7 at 323) recommended that DOE
define a separate product class for high-capacity ranges.
C.B. Walsh (Thermador, No. 622 at 2-6) commented that the useful
characteristics of the professional style range would have to be
sacrificed in order for it to meet the best efficiency levels of a
standard range. He commented that these appliances should be
categorized as high capacity. He said the definition of a high capacity
oven should be changed from a volume of 5 or more cubic feet to 4.5 or
more cubic feet (to include a professional oven with the dimensions of
28 inches wide, 14 inches high, and 20 inches deep) and its bake burner
energy minimum changed from 30,000 BTU/h to 22,500 BTU/h because
efficiency improvements may make today's level of performance (at
30,000 BTU/h) possible with a burner rated at 25,000 BTU/h or less.
ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should develop a
separate product class for commercial products that are sold in limited
quantities in the residential sector. Because the Department is not
promulgating minimum energy efficiency standards for cooking products
in today's rule, the Department believes this comment is not a concern
at this time.
b. Design Options
Oven Door Window
The Department received several comments which argued there would
be reduced utility and a decrease in efficiency with this design
option. G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7
[[Page 48041]]
at 211-212) commented that more than half of its consumers prefer to
purchase products with the window feature and those consumers say it is
an important part of customer satisfaction from a utility standpoint.
G. Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 7) and D. Karl Landstrom (Battelle,
Transcript, Apr. 7 at 239-240 and Transcript, Jun. 7 at 292-294)
commented that the 1994 proposed standard would adversely affect
cooking utility and quality because of the number of times the consumer
would open the door to check the food. H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM,
Transcript, Apr. 7 at 170-172, 177) argued that the elimination of the
oven door window would not only reduce utility but also is probably
prohibited by the NAECA Safe Harbor Provisions. AHAM (AHAM No. 001 at
6) said the Proposed Rule ``violates NAECA's `safe harbor' prohibition
against standards which result in significant adverse utility or
feature impacts (Section 325 (o)(4)).''
Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 1) conducted
limited tests using 17 door openings with no window. She found the
cooking results to be borderline to unacceptable in terms of cooking
performance.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL, No. 001 at 22-24) commented that this
option has a ``positive energy savings'' (from 12.49 to 14.35 percent
for a standard oven) and a ``good payback.'' ADL also commented,
however, this design option ``does change the utility of the oven, that
is, consumers currently perceive a major benefit in the window option,
and are willing to pay a premium for this feature.'' ADL reported 70
percent of all units shipped include a window.
W.W. Olson (Assoc Professor & Extension Housing Technology
Specialist, No. 736 at 1) requested that the removal of the oven door
window option be deleted from the proposed standard. She based her
comment on the added burden this design would place on persons with
limited strength or a painful grasp. In addition, the elimination of
the oven window would burden people who use a wide range of wheeled
assistive devices, frail people (early Alzheimers), and people with
impaired sense of smell because the window would serve as an early
visual warning of burning or a fire within the oven.
Margery Tippie (Redbook Magazine, No. 488 at 1) commented that all
baked goods recipes state a range of baking times, e.g. ``bake 15 to 20
minutes, or until golden brown''. She said the consumers should ``begin
checking for doneness at a minimum of 15 minutes baking time, and to
proceed until the desired degree of doneness is achieved. An oven
window helps in the process.'' She argued that without the window,
there would be constant heat (energy) loss since the oven would be
opened for frequent checking. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, Inc., No. 623
at 1) commented that this design option (as well as reduced vent rate
and improved door seals) may increase the energy efficiency of the
oven, but more testing should be done to ensure consumers are not
negatively impacted.
ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this
design option from the analysis, since it is just as likely to increase
as decrease energy use.
P. Gordon (Marsco Manufacturing Co., No. 595 at 1) urged DOE to
consider not eliminating the glass in oven doors as an option to gain
energy efficiency. He commented that heat reflective glasses have been
able to replace a very expensive borosilicate glass produced in
Germany. Michael E. Hobbs (Marsco Manufacturing Co., No. 865 at 1) also
urged DOE to reconsider this design option and to eliminate it.
Senators Paul Simon, Carol Moseley-Braun and Barbara Boxer (U.S.
Senate, No. 891 at 1, No. 892 at 1, and No. 907 at 1) also supported
the argument to eliminate the oven door window design option.
DOE agrees with the various commenters that the removal of the oven
door window may cause the users of the ovens to open the doors more
frequently and therefore, has the potential to result in increased
energy usage. The opportunity exists to improve the oven door window in
the future. A newer, proven oven window material is needed that has
higher thermal insulation properties, can withstand high oven
temperatures, and has the mechanical strength compatible with the other
oven parts. Until such a technology is proven, DOE will eliminate this
design option.
Reduction of Thermal Mass
G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 217) commented that
Consumer Reports showed a customer preference for the larger oven
cavity and not the 30 percent smaller oven cavity which was assumed in
the TSD. Also, utility may potentially be lost because consumers may
not be able to cook multiple dishes in a smaller oven. In addition,
Whirlpool stated this design option affects product durability,
manufacturing stability, product resistance, and susceptibility to
being crushed during transit. Arthur D. Little, Inc. (AHAM, No. 001 at
21-22) commented that this design option will improve the oven
efficiency, but reductions in material thickness are very limited.
These limitations are based on: the average porcelain thickness needed
for adequate wall coverage and sheet metal thickness reduction
limitations (due to the use of already thin materials.) The ADL
analysis showed that a \1/2\ to 1 lb reduction in oven cavity thermal
mass will reduce oven energy consumption by 0.35 to 0.70 percent. ACEEE
(ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design
option in the analysis because the quality and life of the ovens may be
harmed.
The Department agrees with all arguments against inclusion of this
design option. Due to the issues of consumer product safety and
structural integrity, DOE has eliminated reduced thermal mass as a
design option. However, the opportunity exists to improve this
technology in the future. Newer, less expensive materials or coatings
may be developed in the future which maintain structural strength,
reduce or maintain cost, but reduce thermal mass.
Forced Convection
For electric ovens, G. Greulich (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at
215-216) commented that this design option would result in considerable
changes in consumer utility because many recipes are not easily
converted (from natural convection). The timing is different and
``generational recipes'' which are handed down from one generation to
the next would not cook the same way. M. Thompson (Whirlpool, No. 391
at 13) also submitted that industry aggregate efficiency for electric
self-clean ovens is 2 percent. They reported the industry aggregate
incremental costs of this design option are approximately 6 to 7 times
higher than the DOE TSD cost with payback periods dramatically
increased (from 6 to 302 years for electric standard ovens and from 8
to 363 years for electric self-clean ovens). Lyn Cook (Independent Home
Economist, No. 749 at 2) commented that this option would require a
revolution in consumer cooking methods because it would dramatically
change the way oven cooking is done.
Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 7-11) commented that based
on its evaluation of available data, information provided by
manufacturers, and oven thermal analysis, this option does not meet
consumer payback requirements and changes the utility of the oven. ADL
concluded that the overall energy savings is less than 8 kWh/y as
compared to DOE's estimates of 41 kWh/y and 33 kWh/y for self-cleaning
[[Page 48042]]
and standard ovens, respectively. The reported incremental price
increase for this option is $81.95 which would result in payback
periods of 141 and 106 years, respectively, for these ovens.
ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that this option looks
promising. ACEEE argued against the comment concerning ``old family
recipes'' and said such recipes may need modification, but this problem
could be solved by allowing consumers to turn off this feature for a
single use at a time.
The Department disagrees with arguments that consumer utility is
decreased. The consumer is given the option to turn the forced
convection feature on or off. The consumer is therefore given the
choice to be more energy efficient. The Department realizes that
certain recipes may have to be modified if the design option is used,
but the consumer would learn how to use it if desired. Secondly, the
technology is already in the marketplace. DOE recognizes that full
credit for energy efficiency is not realized because the oven test
procedure measures energy use over short periods of time. Certain foods
would take less time (energy) to cook with convection, e.g.
approximately 3 hours to cook an average turkey with convection,
compared to 5-6 hours without it. The Department also believes this
reduced cooking time increases utility to the consumer.
Improved Door Seals
M. Thompson (Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 223-224) argued that
a little bit of leakage is absolutely critical especially when baking
to allow enough moisture release. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at
9) commented that this design option needs to be considered in
conjunction with the electric standard Reduced Vent Rate design option
to minimize the overall impact on cooking performance. Lyn Cook
(Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) also recommended that DOE
consider the Improved Door Seal and Reduced Vent Rate options together
because both have an influence on the natural convective air flow
through the oven cavity. Lydia Botham (Land O'Lakes, No. 623 at 1)
commented that this design option may increase the energy efficiency of
the oven, but more testing should be done.
For standard electric ovens, Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001
at 17-18) analyzed this design option and concluded that it will have a
very minor impact on oven efficiency (from 12.15 to 12.39 percent) and
a price premium that creates a payback in excess of 10 years.
Additionally, the cooking performance of the oven may be affected. Tim
Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 2) commented that improved
door seals are not justified because of insignificant energy savings
(0.2%) with excessive payback--less than $1 saved per year.
DOE agrees with the comments that sufficient air flow through the
oven cavity is required to allow for proper heating and moisture
conditions while cooking. This design option does not call for
elimination of the air flow by improved seals; it merely states they
can be improved ``without sealing the oven completely.'' Moreover,
because this design option was not contained in any standard levels the
Department found to be economically justified in today's rule, the
Department does not consider it to be an issue in this rulemaking.
Bi-Radiant Oven
Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 3) stated that the
50 percent improvement assumption is unsupported by facts. He also
noted technical problems making this design option impractical. The
Department finds in today's rule that this design option is not
economically justified.
Reflective Surfaces
Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 10) said that this design
option causes loss of consumer utility (oven cleaning) and is not
financially justified. He also commented that industry aggregate
incremental costs of this design option are approximately 12 to 13
times higher than the DOE TSD cost, resulting in a 152 year payback
(Transcript, Jun. 7 at 339). Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No.
6 at 3) stated that maintaining highly reflective oven walls is
impractical.
C.B. Walsh (Thermador, No. 622 at 2) commented that he was not
aware of a reflective material which will retain its reflectivity after
repeated exposure to pyrolytic self-cleaning oven temperatures (850-
950F). Lyn Cook (Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) commented
that such surfaces would quickly discolor, and their longevity would be
restricted. She recommended DOE eliminate this design option. ACEEE
(ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should exclude this design
option in the analysis because it would be impossible to keep the
surfaces clean and shiny, particularly in self-cleaning ovens.
Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 11-17) analyzed this design
option for electric ovens and concluded: (1) current oven utility is
not maintainable using reflective surfaces (the characteristics of this
reflected radiation are different than the normal radiation emitted by
the current cavity); (2) only modest energy savings are possible (from
12.15 baseline efficiency to 12.73 efficiency); and (3) consumer
payback is long (8.62 to 11.33 years).
Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 5 at 1)
disagreed with the statement in the Draft Report that reflective pans
are assumed to have no maintenance cost and could easily be maintained
by the consumer. Copeland stated that Betty Crocker's experience with
consumer testing indicates this assumption is incorrect but did not
provide supporting data. Tim Brooks (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at
3) concurred and stated that the pans would become non-reflective in
about one year.
DOE agrees with the lack of sophistication in the technology to
maintain a clean, reflective oven surface or reflective cooktop pans,
and therefore achieve an energy efficiency improvement, over the life
of the products. Therefore, DOE has eliminated the improved reflective
surfaces in ovens and reflective pans for cooktops as design options in
this rule.
Oven Separator
Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 5 at 1) stated
that an oven separator would have low consumer acceptance and only adds
to the cost of the appliance. She also stated that the existence of a
German model has no relevance for American consumers but did not
provide any reasoning for this statement. However, because the Oven
Separator design option only was used for max tech and was not found to
be economically justified, the Department does not believe this issue
is a concern.
Added Insulation
DOE received comments which said there would be loss of consumer
utility with this design option and that it is not cost effective. D.
Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) commented that manufacturers would be
forced to reduce the oven cavity size drastically to comply with the
proposed standards. He said there would be less utility to the consumer
and insufficient fuel cost savings to justify the cost premium.
Likewise, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 11) submitted that this
design option will reduce consumer utility (oven size), and result in
an excessive payback (increase from 5 to 8 years for standard electric
ovens and increase from 11 to 35 years for self-cleaning electric
ovens). Whirlpool said this design option would not be justified.
[[Page 48043]]
Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 19-21) commented that its
analysis shows that although a 2-inch increase in insulation will have
a large impact (1.4 percentage points on a 12.15 percent efficiency
baseline) on the oven energy usage, it will have a negative impact on
the utility of the oven and range appliances. Either the size of the
overall cabinet must increase, or the oven cavity volume must be
reduced. In addition AHAM's comments agreed that thicker insulation (up
to 4 inches) can achieve a 1.4 percentage point increase in oven
efficiency, but the implementation of this design may affect the
utility of the appliance for the reasons stated above.
The arguments against this design option involve reduction of
consumer utility due to decreased oven cavity volume, if the same oven
footprint is maintained. The Department has eliminated this design
option because it reduces consumer utility and results in an increase
in the life-cycle cost with a negligible decrease in energy use.
Improved Insulation
Tom Hoff (Microtherm Inc., No. 605 at 2-4) commented that his
company has a micro porous thermal insulation which has significantly
higher thermal insulation capability than existing technology and can
be used in oven and range applications.
Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) stated that insulating
the non-self-cleaning oven in a manner similar to the self-cleaning
oven does not improve efficiency in a cost justifiable manner. Maytag
stated that the higher efficiency of the self-cleaning models is not
due solely to the difference in insulation but is also due to the
several panes of heat reflective glass in the door and the inner
baffles.
AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) commented that there is
nothing in DOE's analysis which contradicts the significant evidence
from manufacturers that further insulation will result in negligible
savings in energy. AHAM commented that in order to attain any possible
real increase in efficiency, non-self cleaning products would have to
undergo total door reconstruction (including door seal, heat insulating
glass) at great, cost-prohibitive expense.
The Department did consider higher performing insulation (See Draft
Report Table 1-9) but did not consider the Microtherm product
specifically due to a lack of data, particularly material costs and
possible installation or fabrication cost. The Department only
considered the increased performance and cost of higher density
fiberglass insulation in existing cavities and did not consider changes
to any door glass or inner baffles, although improved door seals were
considered separately.
Reduced Vent Size
Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 9) commented that this design
option needs to be considered in conjunction with the design option for
Improved Door Seal design to minimize the overall impact on cooking
performance. Marcia K. Copeland (General Mills, Inc., No. 355 at 2)
commented that reducing oven vent size will negatively impact high
moisture foods such as pound cake, two-crust fruit pies, roasting, meat
loaf, lasagna, and foods that need drying such as pastry, biscuits, and
cookies. The reduced vent size may result in increased baking time, and
consumers will be less satisfied with the results. Karen Johnson
(Borden, No. 560 at 1) supported these comments. Lydia Botham (Land
O'Lakes, No. 623 at 1) commented that this design option may increase
the energy efficiency of the oven, but more testing should be done.
Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) stated that because vent
size is designed to be at an optimum for cooking performance, any
reduction in size will affect cooking performance. Gregg Greulich
(Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at 2) stated that the venting
Whirlpool uses in self-cleaning ovens is virtually identical to the
venting in its non-self-cleaning models. Whirlpool's testing shows that
reducing the venting will only serve to degrade cooking performance and
will not save energy.
AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) commented that DOE
erroneously assumed that a reduction in the vent opening of a non-self-
cleaning oven to the same size as a self-clean oven would result in
energy savings. AHAM commented that vent openings are not automatically
larger in non-self-cleaning ovens. AHAM stated that the size of the
vent opening is determined by several factors, only one of which is the
cleaning type. AHAM commented that if a smaller vent opening were
effectively required for all models, the product performance would be
degraded on some models by reducing the moisture loss.
Oven venting is necessary for the cooking process, but reducing the
vent rate inherently reduces the energy lost in the cooking process and
therefore, increases the overall efficiency of the oven. The Department
assumed that self-cleaning ovens have smaller vents than non-self-
cleaning ovens due to safety concerns regarding air flow during the
high temperature cleaning cycle. Since the venting systems on self-
cleaning ovens provide satisfactory cooking performance, it was assumed
that these reduced vents could satisfactorily be applied to non-self-
cleaning ovens and yield an efficiency improvement. However, this
assumption is refuted by the Whirlpool comment that there is no
difference in venting in its products and the AHAM comment that vent
openings are not automatically larger in non-self-cleaning ovens. Thus,
the Department has probably overstated any energy savings from this
design option. In making today's determination DOE is not considering
any energy savings from this design option.
Improved Contact Conductance
Arthur D. Little, Inc (AHAM, No. 001 at 24-27) reported the results
of its analysis and testing on this design option for electric
cooktops. Its results showed that the major mechanism for heat transfer
was physical contact between the pot and coil, not contact pressure.
The DOE test procedure uses an aluminum block which may be flatter than
an actual cooking pot. ADL stated it found minimal real world
efficiency improvements possible. The Department agrees that the heat
transfer method is a function of physical contact and that this contact
is influenced by the flatness of the object on the cooktop.
Improved Efficiency of the Magnetron Power Supply/Transformer
Charles Samuels (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 51) argued that the
transformer improvements were based on faulty communications between
DOE's contractors and industry; consequently DOE has over-estimated the
cost and energy improvement potential and not taken into account the
problems with product size and weight that would be caused by more
efficient transformers, even if technologically feasible.
D. Susak (Advance Transformer Company, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 272)
commented that efficiency increases to 96 percent are not attainable at
any price, much less at $5 as stated in the TSD. Mr. Susak reported
results from some testing that resulted in a transformer efficiency of
91.4 percent with an additional cost of $6.45 per unit and a payback
period greater than six years. This improvement was from only one of
its current designs and should not be expected for all designs. Gregg
Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) agreed with the Advance Transformer
study and said that Whirlpool's own study corroborates it. He said this
design option should be dropped. Jack Weizeorick, AHAM (April 7,
rebuttal at
[[Page 48044]]
341-344) commented that the TSD reference ``(56)'' to C. Huene (TSD,
Vol 2, App E, p 1-49) was incorrect. Mr. Huene was contacted, and he
stated he never said that a 95 percent efficient transformer was
available at a cost of $5.
O.P. Clay (Sharp, No. 521 at 2) commented that DOE's provided cost
estimates of $7.90 for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of
microwave ovens from 54 to 62.5 percent cannot be achieved. Data was
supplied that showed a 1 percent improvement would cost $4.05, and
achieving an additional 2.5 percent would cost $9.00. Sharp estimated
the three design options proposed by DOE would cost at least $13.05 and
only increase the efficiency 3.5 percent. Sharp urged that DOE not
include microwave ovens in the rulemaking based on these estimates.
Robert Lagoussie, International Microwave Power Institute (April 7,
at 309-310) commented that a technical paper by Dr. C. R. Buffler on an
improved power supply was misinterpreted in the TSD. Mr. Lagoussie
commented that the improvement was technically but not economically
feasible in 1978, and it would be even less economically feasible
today. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 262-263) commented
that Dr. Buffler reported an efficiency number based on theory that was
not meant to be a practical solution. The commenter reported that it
will be difficult to improve the present efficiency levels of 45 to 50
percent dramatically unless there are technological breakthroughs.
Clayton Bond (Toshiba Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 317-318)
commented that his company had met with the other three magnetron
manufacturers in Japan (there are none in the U.S.), and their response
to the proposed standard is that the efficiency of the magnetron can be
increased marginally (1 percent, or from 71 to 72 percent), but the
cost of even this marginal improvement would be cost prohibitive. This
one percent increase in efficiency would result in a cost increase of
more than double the current price of the tube in this country. Other
concerns were that it would take three years to develop; it would
require new tooling, jigs, and expensive materials, and this improved
design would be sold only in the U.S. market which is one-third of the
world market. Likewise, Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3)
commented that magnetrons produced today are 71% efficient with a
maximum realistic efficiency of 72%. He argued that this design option
should be dropped since the magnetrons are as efficient as possible
already.
Dennis Wilson, Frigidaire (April 7, rebuttal at 345) commented that
an increased efficiency microwave oven would require an increase in a
transformer size and additional costs. Frigidaire's written comments
(No.544 at 3) further argued that the company would be at an economic
disadvantage in the European marketplace because this increased size
would make the higher efficiency microwave oven incompatible with the
common chassis used for both the domestic and export markets.
Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 10) commented
that the high efficiency transformer would be larger and heavier than
the transformer used today and would result in an increase in the
overall size of microwave ovens which would result in increased
shipping costs since fewer could be shipped in a standard sized truck
or container.
E. Toomey (Goldstar, No. 503 at 1) commented that her company is
currently using a 95% efficient magnetron which ``leaves no room for
improvement.'' At present, she said her company's ovens are already
rated at close to 60% efficiency. ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 24) urged
DOE to include the effects of the adoption of European power supply
standards on U.S. microwave manufacturers.
DOE has analyzed the data which was submitted during the comment
period and found the data to be contradictory in part. The comments
summarized above indicate technological barriers to improving the
efficiency of microwave ovens above the baseline value of 54 percent.
However, AHAM data (AHAM, No. 001 at B-1) reports efficiency/cavity
volume and efficiency/oven type which show many units above 54 percent
efficiency and a significant number above 57 percent, thus indicating
the technology exists to improve the efficiency of the ovens. Moreover,
because this design option was not contained in any standard levels the
Department found to be economically justified in today's rule, the
Department does not consider it to be an issue in this rulemaking.
Modified Waveguide
Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 11) commented
that only a small efficiency improvement may be available on some
microwave ovens by reducing the length or improving the finish on the
waveguides. Many of the ovens produced in 1993 already have these new
features. Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) agreed with this
comment and said that this design option should be dropped. He also
said that it is possible to increase the coupling between the magnetron
and the cavity for a specific load in such a way that the efficiency
would improve for that specific load. However, there were several
significant disadvantages to this tight coupling which he supplied in
his written comments. D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 4) commented
that this design option would require the redesign and retooling of the
waveguide since the waveguide itself is an integral part of the cavity
design, and a separate part would be necessary in order to reduce the
material costs. Cost estimates were provided in the written comments.
The Department believes these comments are well founded. Therefore,
this design option was eliminated.
Microwave Oven Fan Efficiency
Les Harris (Sharp Electronics Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at
282-284) commented that the efficiency increase and associated cost
increase with the fan in the TSD are in error. Various options are
listed and agreement with the TSD is possible (at 0.8 percent
increase), but the cost increase is $7 to $8.22, not $1.05 as stated in
the TSD. This cost would significantly extend the payback period. Also,
the improvement previously stated requires an electronically commuted
DC motor, which has been theoretically proven, but not proven in
practice.
Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 11) commented
that manufacturers' data indicates that most fans use between 15 and 32
watts of power, but some use a high of 75 watts. AHAM supplied data
which shows an increased efficiency fan, which uses 15.2 watts over the
``standard'' fan which uses approximately 21 watts, at an additional
cost of $2.20. If an electronically commuted DC motor were used, the
power would be reduced to 7.7 watts at an additional cost of $8.25.
D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 4) commented that a more
efficient fan motor could be manufactured without a capital investment
but would require engineering and testing to qualify the component. The
revised motor is assumed to be directly interchangeable with the
current motor and not require a tooling investment. Cost estimates were
provided in the written comments.
Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 599 at 3) commented that fans use
about 25 watts and an efficiency improvement of 10% amounts to 2.5
watts. He stated this improvement could possibly double the cost of the
fan which increases the payback period, while providing minimal energy
savings. He
[[Page 48045]]
recommended deleting this design option.
The Department incorporated this data in the Draft Report analysis
which showed a decreased efficiency improvement at increased cost.
c. Other Comments
Significance of Energy Savings
H. Brooke Stauffer (AHAM, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 169, 170) commented
that AHAM does not believe a performance standard is justified because
the amount of energy saved is insignificant. AHAM argued that the
energy savings are exaggerated and the costs understated. AHAM said
this position was based on tests conducted and data which suggests the
costs reported in the TSD are one-third to one-fourth the actual
manufacturer's cost to implement various design options. M. Thompson
(Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 205, 206) gave annual cost savings
for various design options and argued that their collective savings
were small.
AHAM (AHAM, No. 001 at 6) further commented that because the energy
used by ranges is minor, the proposed standards do not meet the
threshold NAECA criterion that an amended standard must result in
``significant conservation of energy'' under Section 325 (o)(3)(B).
AHAM argued that the total projected energy savings from proposed range
performance standards are so low that the standard's benefits will not
exceed its burdens as required under Section 325 (o)(2)(B)(i)(III).
While the term ``significant'' is not defined in EPCA, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that
Congress intended the word ``significant'' to mean ``non-trivial.''
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355, 1373
(D.C.Cir. 1985). Thus, for this rulemaking, DOE concludes that at each
trial standard level the estimated energy savings is non-trivial and
therefore significant.
Life Cycle Costs
D. Karl Landstrom (Battelle, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 233-234)
commented that the life cycle cost data should be updated by DOE to use
current DOE Energy Information Administration estimates of future cost
projections rather than the 1991 estimated projections.
Gregg Greulich (Whirlpool, No. 391 at 5) commented that if all of
DOE's first seven design options were to be incorporated into a new
standard self-clean electric range, the total annual cost savings would
be $6.47. He pointed out that in 1979 (when the FTC first considered
labeling ranges), a total annual operating cost savings difference of
$7.00 would have been considered significant by consumers. The $6.47
figure translates into $3.33 in 1979 dollars, less than half of what
the FTC deemed to be a significant cost savings to consumers.
Whirlpool (No. 391 at 6) also commented that DOE standards could
affect eight different Whirlpool product categories. The cost of
compliance in each product category will likely be millions to many
tens of millions of dollars. Whirlpool argued that the cumulative
impact of adding ranges, ovens, and cooktops, when coupled with the
``diminutive energy savings,'' makes energy standards for this product
category unjustifiable.
The Department has recalculated life-cycle costs using the latest
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) energy prices available at the time of the
analysis. The Draft Report used AEO 95 energy prices, and the
supplemental analysis used AEO 97 energy prices. In addition, the Gas
Research Institute (GRI) 97 prices were used for a basis of comparison
in the Supplemental Analysis.
Test Procedures
There were many comments on the test procedures, including annual
energy consumption. These comments, however, were discussed and
resolved in the Test Procedure Final Rule for Kitchen Ranges, Cooktops,
Ovens, and Microwave Ovens. 62 FR 51976 (October 3, 1997).
Economic hardship
Joann Prater (MCD Corporation, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 276-277)
commented that MCD Corporation would probably go out of business if the
new microwave ruling is enacted for the following reasons: MCD
Corporation is a small, single-line product company which recently
invested $5M in tooling for a new, more efficient oven which is
scheduled to enter the market this year. This new oven, however, does
not meet the new efficiency standard proposed in the NOPR. The company
would not be able to capture its investment during the shorter period
its new product would be on the market, and MCD could not retool for
another new oven to be manufactured by the effective date of the new
standards. She also commented that several assumptions in the TSD are
incorrect. She maintained that the cost to retool is understated
because the TSD did not include the additional costs to redesign
features such as the power supply, the fan, the modified waveguide, an
improved magnetron, and new reflective surfaces. The TSD accounts for
only the wave guide. The oral testimony was also supported by written
comments (MCD Corporation, No. 742 at 1-20).
Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 1) commented
that the proposed standards for microwave ovens would ``eliminate the
last remaining U.S. production and may concentrate U.S. sales in the
hands of only one or two companies.'' J. Geary (Peerless-Premier
Appliance Co., No. 352 at 1) commented about the adverse economic
impact and the potential lessening of competition that the proposed
standards would have on his company. He commented that DOE and the
Attorney General had not adequately evaluated the impact of the
standards on small manufacturers.
D. Horstman (Maytag, No. 490 at 3) commented that the proposed
standards, if enacted, would force Maytag to spend millions of dollars
at its plants with considerable competitive disadvantage compared to
its primary competitors. He said Maytag may have to discontinue lower
volume product lines and thus, further reduce competition in the
marketplace.
D. Wilson (Frigidaire, No. 544 at 5) commented that the economic
impact on the Dalton Microwave Operations would be significant if it
needed to redesign its products to meet the proposed DOE requirements.
He added that because only a few U.S. companies continue to manufacture
this product, the addition of more economic burden will likely cause
the remaining smaller manufacturers to close down, allowing the
importers to completely take over the market.
Because the Department found in today's rule that standards for
microwave ovens are not economically justified, today's rule will not
result in any economic hardship.
Microwave Noise at Higher Efficiency
Robert Lagoussie, International Microwave Power Institute (April 7,
at 310-313), R.D. Parlow (National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, No. 689 at 1), Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels
(AHAM, No. 001 at 9-10) commented that a microwave oven produces
electronic noise outside the normal frequency spectrum of 2,400 to
2,500 MHZ. There can be considerable electronic noise in the 2 to 3 GHz
range which affects other devices (broadcast/cellular phone), and more
noise is generated as the efficiency of the microwave increases. The
International Special Committee on Electromagnetic Interference is
considering a new noise
[[Page 48046]]
standard this year which would reduce the magnetron noise level
requirement from 85 to 99 decibels currently to a new standard of 30 to
40 decibels. Amana Refrigeration, Inc. (No. 347 at 6) commented that
the FCC has indicated that future requirements for noise interference
will be tightened substantially. Amana said that design changes
employed to achieve reduced noise will reduce the unit's efficiency.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
submitted comments on behalf of U.S. microwave manufacturers,
expressing concern that the Department's interest in increasing
microwave oven efficiency may be counterproductive to efforts being
made to control radio noise. Increased microwave magnetron efficiency
could raise radio noise levels, thereby, increasing the potential for
interference (National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, No. 689 at 1). The Department finds in today's rule
that this design option is not economically justified; therefore, this
rule will not cause increased noise.
Manufacturer Impact
In the Proposed Rule, DOE conducted a manufacturer impact analysis
using the LBL Manufacturer Impact Model (LBL-MIM) as described in the
TSD accompanying the 1994 Proposed Rule. Many comments were received
regarding this analysis. In the revised analysis which supported the
Draft Report, the Department used a computer model that simulates a
hypothetical company to assess the likely impacts of standards on
manufacturers and to determine the effects of standards on the industry
at large. This model, the Manufacturer Analysis Model (MAM), is
described in the TSD. Appendix C provides a broad array of outputs,
including shipments, price, revenue, net income, and short- and long-
run returns on equity. The ``Output Table'' in Appendix C lists values
for all these outputs for the base case and for each of the five
standard levels analyzed. It also gives a range for each of these
estimates. The base case represents the forecasts of outputs with a
range of energy efficiencies which are expected if there are no new or
amended standards. A ``Sensitivity Chart'' (TSD, Appendix C) shows how
returns on equity would be affected by a change in any one of the nine
control variables of the model. The Manufacturer Analysis Model
consists of 13 modules. The module which estimates the impact of
standards on total industry net present value is version 1.2 of the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The GRIM was dated March 1,
1993 and was developed by the Arthur D. Little Consulting Company (ADL)
under contract to AHAM, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association
(GAMA), and the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI).
(See TSD, Appendix C for more details.) The results of this analysis
are reported in section III. c. of today's rule. However, these results
were not utilized in coming to the conclusions reported in section III.
e. All trial standard levels in today's rule were rejected based on
consumer economics. Therefore, a revised manufacturer impact analysis
was not necessary.
Rebound Effect
ACEEE (ACEEE, No. 557 at 3) commented that it did not understand
DOE's estimate of 10% rebound effect for cooking, because this rebound
effect implies that households purchasing efficient ranges and ovens
would cook more.
A ten percent rebound effect was not used in the analysis. A
rebound effect of less than one percent was used.
Microwave Ovens Not Covered Under NAECA
Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 2) argued
that nothing in the statutory language of NAECA required or indicated
that microwave ovens should fall within the definition of ``kitchen
ranges and ovens'' in Section 322(a)(10) as opposed to other covered
products.
The Department has previously determined that microwave ovens fall
within the definition of ``kitchen ranges and ovens.'' 43 FR 20108 (May
10, 1978).
Baseline Values Incorrect in TSD
Jack Weizeorick and Charles Samuels (AHAM, No. 001 at 7-9)
commented that the microwave oven baseline value for shipment weighted
average efficiency of 54.5 percent used in the TSD for the Proposed
Rule is based on AHAM data of microwave ovens shipped in 1989. More
recent shipment data shows a new, higher value of 55.8 percent. ACEEE
(ACEEE, No. 557 at 23) commented that DOE should redo its analysis
after it reduces the average baseline consumption of ovens and cooktops
to be in line with recent data by utilities and GRI. The Department
agreed and incorporated the 55.8 percent number into the Draft Report
analysis.
Consumer Education Programs
AHAM ( No. 001 at 16) stated that two reports indicated significant
variations in energy use among consumers preparing identical meals (50
and 60 percent differences respectively). AHAM recommend that DOE
establish consumer education programs as a national priority for saving
energy, in lieu of mandatory product performance standards. G. Greulich
(Whirlpool, Transcript, Apr. 7 at 220) also commented that more
emphasis should be placed on consumer education rather than engineering
redesign of the ranges. R. Markum (Emerson Electric Co., No. 366 at 5)
commented that much more potential energy savings exist through
consumer education on the proper methods to achieve maximum cooking
efficiency rather than through mandatory efficiency standards. Lyn Cook
(Independent Home Economist, No. 749 at 2) commented that informing the
consumer on how to make optimal use of energy efficient cooking methods
is key to reducing the total amount of energy used. She quoted 18
points from ACEEE's Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings which
demonstrate how significant energy variances can be eliminated. Mark
Krebs (Laclede Gas, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 18 at 2) commented that the
goals of energy efficiency and conservation are more likely to be
achieved through facilitating consumer education rather than to simply
dictate or restrict choices of technology.
The Department is required by statute to promulgate energy
efficiency standards for cooking products if economically justified and
technically feasible. EPCA, Sec. 325, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295. The
Department's ENERGY STAR program helps to educate consumers
on the purchase of more energy efficient appliances. The program is
increasing continually the list of products the program covers. One of
the criteria the program uses to determine which products it should add
to the program is an evaluation of whether there is a wide range of
energy efficiencies among the products in the marketplace. Because
there are not a wide range of efficiencies for cooking products, they
have not been added to the Energy Star program thus far.
d. Other Comments Regarding the Draft Report and Supplemental Analysis
Marcia Copeland (Betty Crocker, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 5 at 1-3) stated
that the Draft Report did not address the implication of the changes to
the proposed rule on consumers. She also requested DOE provide a
glossary of terms.
DOE does analyze the effects of its rulemakings on consumers. For
example, the Department abolished the
[[Page 48047]]
design option that eliminated the oven door window because of the
adverse impact it would have on consumer utility. Because today's rule
does not impose additional efficiency requirements on cooking products,
the Department concludes that today's rule will not impact consumers.
The first time the Department uses an acronym, the Department
spells it out, for example, ``Technical Support Document (TSD)''; then
the Department uses the acronym (e.g. TSD) throughout the rest of the
document. The Department, however, agrees a glossary is a good
suggestion, and the Department will provide a glossary in the TSD.
Electric Non-Self-Cleaning Ovens
In the reopening notice of February 27, 1998, DOE indicated a
likelihood of not establishing standards for electric non-self-cleaning
ovens. Many commenters supported no standards for electric non-self-
cleaning ovens. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at 2)
stated that no improved venting or insulation for electric non-self-
cleaning ovens would meet all of DOE's minimum economic and utility
requirements or its energy savings requirements under NAECA. Whirlpool
supported the Department's decision not to establish performance
standards for any electric cooking products. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-
RM-S-97-700 No. 6 at 1) stated that the cost of compliance testing
would be greater than the potential energy savings of the design
options. Maytag (Maytag, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 9 at 4) supported DOE's
conclusions regarding venting and insulating improvements on electric
non-self-cleaning electric ranges.
AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) supported DOE's conclusion
that no standards are appropriate for microwave ovens or other electric
cooking products. AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 3) also cited
cumulative regulatory burden placed on the manufacturers (due to the
refrigerator, room air conditioner, and clothes washer rules) as
another reason why standards for cooking products are inappropriate.
Steve Nadel (ACEEE, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 32 at 2) supported no new
standard for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. However, ACEEE disagreed
with the rationale that the Department cannot be certain that all
products if vented and insulated like self-cleaning counterparts will
meet a specific performance standard because DOE can never be sure that
a specific design option will always achieve a specific performance
level. DOE could perform additional testing, but given the modest
savings of a standard, the burden of performance testing, and the fact
that the rulemaking is already years behind, public interest is best
served by finalizing a ``no standard'' standard for electric products.
Mark Krebs (Laclede Gas, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 18 at 1) questioned how
DOE could state that the record for electric cooking products is
complete if performance data on electric ovens does not exist. In the
reopening notice of February 27, 1998, however, the Department stated
that DOE believed the record was complete for electric cooktops,
electric self-cleaning ovens, and microwave ovens. The Department did
not state the record was complete for electric non-self-cleaning ovens.
The Department issued the February 1998 notice in order to complete the
record.
The American Gas Association (AGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 11-12)
commented that the Department has not shown adequate justification for
not issuing standards for electric cooking products. AGA commented that
the analysis shows a performance standard for electric non-self-
cleaning ovens is technologically feasible, economically justified, and
will save significant energy. AGA stated that DOE's argument that no
performance or usage data exists for these products (therefore it is
unknown if they could meet a performance standard with improved
insulation & venting) would imply that DOE would not pursue standards
for any NAECA products where data did not already exist. The National
Propane Gas Association (NPGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 31 at 2) concurred
with AGA's comments.
As discussed under ``design options,'' the Department has received
information from manufacturers indicating that their self-cleaning and
non-self-cleaning ovens typically already use the same venting, and the
Department has probably overstated the energy savings. The Department
also believes that it has shown adequate justification (see Section
``III. e. Conclusion'') for rejecting standards for electric cooking
products.
Separating the Rule
Many commenters requested the Department split off certain products
from this rule and finalize the rule for those products immediately.
AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) commented that the electric
range and oven and microwave oven portion of this rulemaking should be
finalized immediately. AHAM stated that failure to finalize this rule
has created uncertainty among manufacturers, component suppliers, and
other parties and adversely affects investment and redesign decisions.
Amana (Amana, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 38 at 1) emphasized the importance of
finalizing the electric range and microwave oven portions of the rule
as soon as possible and separately, if necessary, from the gas cooking
products rule. Amana cited the adverse effects the delay has caused on
planning and investment. Whirlpool (Whirlpool, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 33 at
4) stated that it has been waiting eight years for a final rule, which
has not allowed them to be completely free to dedicate resources to
innovative consumer features, without setting them forth. Consequently,
Whirlpool urged DOE to issue a separate rule for electric cooking
products immediately.
Sharp (Sharp, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 1) fully supported DOE's
conclusion that establishing new or revised energy conservation
standards for microwave ovens are not technologically feasible or
economically justified. Sharp requested that DOE separate microwave
ovens from the other consumer products identified in the notice and
issue, without delay, a final determination that DOE will not establish
any energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. Sharp commented
that such a final pronouncement by DOE will remove the lingering
uncertainty that has hindered the microwave oven industry.
Due to requests that the rule be split in order to issue a final
rule for electric cooking products without further delay, the
Department has severed the electric cooking products from the gas
cooking products in this rule.
Energy Rates
Commenters recommended that the Department should use the latest
energy price forecasts and the Consumer Marginal Energy Rates (CMER) as
recommended by the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency
Standards (ACAES). Sharp (Sharp, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 35 at 2) commented
that if consumer marginal energy rates were used in the calculations
for microwave ovens, it would greatly increase the payback period,
which already extends beyond the economically acceptable timeframe. AGA
(AGA, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 37 at 9) also commented that DOE should use
the latest AEO price projections and the energy cost recommendations of
the ACAES. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA, EE-RM-S-97-700
No. 31 at 2) concurred with AGA's comments. Edison Electric Institute
(EEI, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 21 at 1) commented that the analysis should be
changed to show the results of
[[Page 48048]]
calculations over a range of marginal energy prices, which would lead
to more accurate ranges of life-cycle-costs, rather than using
``average'' prices. EEI stated that the avoided energy cost rates using
AEO 98 are lower than the rates used in the DOE analysis. EEI also
commented that discount factors for this type of consumer appliance are
probably too low. In addition, EEI commented that if the peak demand
savings are assuming 100% coincidence with utility peak demands, 100%
diversity, and 100% load factors, then the values are too high and
should be adjusted downward to reflect actual coincidence, diversity,
and load factors. AHAM (AHAM, EE-RM-S-97-700 No. 26 at 2) also
commented that AEO 98 and CMER should be used. AHAM stated that these
lower electricity rates would result in even longer paybacks for any
possible standard level.
The Department is committed to certain procedures under the Process
Rule. 61 FR 36973 (July 15, 1996). These procedures, however, do not
apply entirely to certain rules already underway, 61 FR at 36980,
including the cooking products rulemaking. The Supplemental Analysis,
conducted in 1997, did use the most current energy price forecasts
available at that time. In addition, the Advisory Committee had not yet
made its recommendations to the Department regarding CMER at the time
the Supplemental Analysis was conducted. Furthermore, using these lower
energy rates would not increase the likelihood that standards for
electric cooking products would be economically justified because lower
energy prices would only increase the payback period and decrease the
life-cycle-cost savings. Consequently, the Department did not expend
the resources to reanalyze the data using these new energy rates.
Regarding peak demand savings, the Department agrees with EEI and did
not assume 100 percent diversity, coincidence, or load factors. See
Appendix E of the General Methodology in the TSD for a more complete
explanation.
EEI questioned whether an energy efficiency standard should discuss
emissions and environmental impacts. EEI commented that the Draft
Report downplays the reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions from power plants, on an overall and per kWh basis, and it
does not appear that the report shows a decline in emissions for the
years 2001-2030. EEI also stated that the impact of restructured
electricity markets could have a significant impact on emissions, as
customers choose their preference of generation sources. The Department
agrees that forecast emission rates for NOX, SO2,
and CO2 do fall over time. Emission rates may be affected by
restructuring, but given the absence of clear indications of this
effect, it was not incorporated into the analysis.
III. Analysis of Electric Cooking Products Standards
Revised standards for cooking products shall be designed to achieve
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. These and related statutory
criteria are addressed below.
a. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
The Department examined a range of standard levels for cooking
products. Table 4-1 presents the five efficiency levels that had been
selected for analysis for the five classes of electric cooking
products. Level 5 corresponds to the highest efficiency level, max
tech, considered in the engineering analysis. The final TSD contains
the information analyzed in the Draft Report and the supplemental
analysis.
Table 4-1.--Annual Energy Use for Standard Levels Analyzed in the Proposed Rule for Kitchen Ranges, Ovens and
Microwave Ovens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard level
Product class -----------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric ovens, self-cleaning (kWh)........... 303.7 303.7 303.7 303.7 220.0 213.7
Electric ovens, non-self-cleaning (kWh)....... 274.9 263.2 251.8 248.0 169.6 162.4
Microwave ovens (kWh)......................... 143.2 143.2 143.2 143.2 143.2 132.4
Electric cooking top, coil element (kWh)...... 234.7 234.7 225.2 225.2 222.9 222.9
Electric cooking top, smooth element (kWh).... 233.4 233.4 233.4 233.4 233.4 206.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For analytical purposes the Department segmented the above classes
into three groups: conventional ovens, conventional cooking tops, and
microwave ovens. Rather than presenting the results for all classes of
cooking products in today's notice, the Department selected a class of
cooking products as being representative, or typical, of each group of
the product, and DOE is presenting the results only for those
representative classes. The results for the other classes can be found
in the TSD in the same sections as those referenced for the
representative class. The results and conclusions for each group are
presented separately below.
1. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Conventional Ovens
The Department selected non-self-cleaning electric ovens as being
the representative class of conventional ovens. For non-self-cleaning
electric ovens, trial standard level 1 accomplishes energy efficiency
improvement from the baseline by reduced venting; level 2 includes
improved insulation; level 3 includes improved seals; level 4 provides
for a biradiant oven; level 5 includes reduced conduction losses,
forced convection, and an oven separator.
For efficiency levels 1-3 of conventional ovens, the calculations
are based on the supplemental analysis, using AEO 97 energy price
forecasts. Efficiency levels 4-5 of conventional ovens are based on the
Draft Report analysis, which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts. They
were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental analysis.
2. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Conventional Cooking Tops
The Department selected electric-coil cooking tops as being
representative of conventional cooking tops. For electric-coil cooking
tops, trial standard level 1 remains at the baseline while levels 2 and
3 accomplish energy efficiency improvements from the baseline by
incorporating improved heating element contact conductance; levels 4
and 5 add reflective surfaces.
Conventional electric cooktops were not addressed in the
Supplemental Analysis. Values pertaining to cooktops referenced in
today's rule are based on
[[Page 48049]]
the Draft Report, which used AEO 95 energy price forecasts.
3. Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Microwave Ovens
The Department considers all microwave ovens to comprise one class.
For microwave ovens, trial standard levels 1 through 4 remain at the
baseline, while level 5 incorporates an efficient power supply, an
efficient fan, an efficient magnetron, and a reflective surface. All
values referenced are from the Draft Report, which used AEO 95 energy
price forecasts.
b. Significance of Energy Savings
Under section 325(o)(3)(B) of EPCA, the Department is prohibited
from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not
result in ``significant'' energy savings. The Department forecasted
energy consumption by the use of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory--
Residential Energy Model (LBL-REM). See Appendix B of the TSD. To
estimate the energy savings by the year 2030 due to revised standards,
the energy consumption of new cooking products under the base case is
compared to the energy consumption of those sold under the candidate
standard levels. For the candidate energy conservation standards, the
analysis projects that over the period 2001-2030, the following energy
savings would result for all classes of the product. See Tables 3.3 and
Supplemental Table 3.16b in the TSD.
1. Conventional Ovens
Level 1--0.05 Quad 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Calculations are based on the supplemental analysis, using
AEO 97 energy prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 2--0.10 Quad \3\
Level 3--0.03 Quad \3\
Level 4--1.68 Quad 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Calculations are based Draft Report analysis, which used AEO
95 energy prices. They were not reanalyzed in the Supplemental
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 5--1.68 Quad \4\
2. Conventional Cooking Tops
Level 1--0 Quad
Level 2--0.05 Quad
Level 3--0.05 Quad
Level 4--0.10 Quad
Level 5--0.45 Quad
3. Microwave Ovens.
Level 1--0 Quad
Level 2--0 Quad
Level 3--0 Quad
Level 4--0 Quad
Level 5--0.33 Quad
While the term ``significant'' is not defined in EPCA, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that
Congress intended the word ``significant'' to mean ``non-trivial.''
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355, 1373
(D.C.Cir. 1985). Thus, for this rulemaking, DOE concludes that each
standard level results in significant energy savings.
c. Economic Justification
Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA provides seven factors to be
evaluated, to the greatest extent practicable, in determining whether a
conservation standard is economically justified.
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
The engineering analysis identified improvements in efficiency
along with the associated costs to manufacturers for each efficiency
level for each class of product. For each design option, these
associated costs constitute the increased per-unit cost to
manufacturers to achieve the indicated energy efficiency levels.
Manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer markups will result in a
consumer purchase price higher than the manufacturer cost.
To assess the likely impacts of standards on manufacturers and to
determine the effects of standards on different-sized firms, the
Department used a computer model that simulates hypothetical firms in
the industry under consideration. This model, the Manufacturer Analysis
Model (MAM), is explained in the TSD. (See TSD, Appendix C.) The cost
of a compliance testing and certification program is an additional
impact on the manufacturer. The Department's analysis, however, did not
assess the impact of this program on the manufacturers.
For consumers, measures of economic impact are the changes in
purchase price, annual energy expense, and installation costs. The
purchase price, installation cost, and cumulative annual energy
expense, i.e., life-cycle cost, of each standard level are presented in
Chapter 3 of the TSD. Under section 325 of the EPCA, the life-cycle
cost analysis is a separate factor to be considered in determining
economic justification.
Conventional Ovens. The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to
meet efficiency level 1 for electric non-self-cleaning ovens is $1.63;
to meet level 2, the manufacturers' cost increase is $4.84; level 3 is
$8.53; level 4 is $71.03, and level 5 is $125.94. See Technical Support
Document, Table 1.11.
At those levels of efficiency, the consumer price increase, for
electric non-self-cleaning ovens at level 1 is $3.5; to meet level 2,
the cost increase is $11; level 3 is $29; level 4 is $179, and level 5
is $314. For electric non-self-cleaning ovens, the per-unit reduction
in annual cost of operation, including energy expenses and any
additional maintenance costs, at level 1 is $13; standard
level 2 is $23; level 3 is $23; level 4 is
$84, and level 5 is $84. See Technical Support
Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.
The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Manufacturer Impact Model analyzes
the effects of the trial standard levels on both the long run and short
run returns on equity. Short run return on equity refer to the effect
during approximately the first three years, and long run return on
equity refers to the effects beyond three years. The results (analyzed
in the Draft Report) for all classes of conventional ovens 5
show that revised standards would have some effect on a prototypical
manufacturer's short-run return on equity with some decrease at the
higher standard levels from the 10.53 percent in the base case.
Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce short-run returns
on equity of 10.64 percent, 10.63 percent, 10.21 percent, 8.85 percent,
and 5.14 percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight
impacts on long-run return on equity. Standard levels 1 through 5 are
projected to produce long-run return on equities of 10.51 percent,
10.51 percent, 10.35 percent, 10.33 percent, and 9.75 percent,
respectively. See Technical Support Document, Tables 5.2 and 5.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These values, calculated in the Draft Report, were based on
all classes of conventional ovens, including gas ovens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Cooking Tops. The per-unit increased cost to
manufacturers to meet the level 1 efficiency for electric-coil cooking
tops is zero, since this class is at the baseline; to meet levels 2 and
3 the manufacturers' cost increase is $2.28, and to meet levels 4 and 5
the cost is $5.31. See Technical Support Document, Table 1.6.
At those levels of efficiency, the consumer price increase, for
electric-coil cooking tops at level 1 is unchanged, since it is at the
baseline; to meet levels 2 and 3 the cost increase is $5, and at levels
4 and 5 it is $12. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.1.
The per-unit reduction in annual cost of operation, including
energy expenses and any increase in maintenance cost, for electric-coil
cooking tops at level 1 is unchanged since it is at the baseline;
standard levels 2 and 3 would reduce operational expenses by $1, and
levels 4 and 5 would reduce operational expenses by $1. See Technical
Support Document, Table 4.1.
The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Manufacturer Impact Model results
for
[[Page 48050]]
all classes of conventional cooking tops show that revised standards
would have slight impacts on a prototypical manufacturer's short-run
return on equity 6 with some decrease at the higher standard
levels from the 10.84 percent in the base case. Standard levels 1
through 5 are projected to produce short-run return on equities of
11.07 percent, 11.04 percent, 11.08 percent, 11.02 percent, and 9.24
percent, respectively. These standard levels have slight impacts on
long-run return on equity, with some decreases at the higher standard
levels. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce long-run
returns on equity of 10.77 percent, 10.78 percent, 10.78 percent, 10.42
percent and 9.71 percent, respectively. See Technical Support Document,
Tables 5.1 and 5.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These values, calculated in the Draft Report, were based on
all classes of conventional cooktops, including gas cooktops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microwave Ovens. The per-unit increased cost to manufacturers to
meet efficiency levels 1 through 4 for microwave ovens is zero since
these levels are at the baseline; to meet level 5, the manufacturers'
cost increase is $51.11. See Technical Support Document, Table 1.17.
At those levels of efficiency, the consumer price increase for
microwave ovens at levels 1 through 4 is unchanged since they are at
the baseline; to meet level 5, the cost increase is $66. See Technical
Support Document, Table 4.8.
The per-unit reduction in annual cost of operation at levels 1
through 4 would not reduce annual operational expense since it is at
the baseline. Standard level 5 would reduce operational expenses by $1.
See Technical Support Document, Table 4.8.
The Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-Manufacturer Impact Model results
for microwave ovens show that revised standards would not affect a
prototypical manufacturer's long nor short-run return on equity of 3.65
percent in the base case, except for max tech. Standard levels 1
through 5 are projected to produce short-run return on equities of 3.65
percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent and 2.30 percent,
respectively. Standard levels 1 through 5 are projected to produce
long-run return on equities of 3.65 percent, 3.65 percent, 3.65
percent, 3.65 percent and 4.81 percent, respectively. See Technical
Support Document, Tables 5.3 and 5.9.
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Net Present Value
One measure of the effect of proposed standards on consumers is the
change in life-cycle costs, including recurring operating expenses,
purchase price, and installation costs resulting from the new
standards. The change in life-cycle cost is quantified by the
difference in the life-cycle costs between the base case and candidate
standard case for each of the product classes analyzed. The life-cycle
cost is the sum of the purchase price and the cumulative operating
expense, including installation and maintenance expenditures,
discounted over the lifetime of the appliance. The life-cycle cost was
calculated for the range of efficiencies analyzed in the ``Engineering
Analysis'' section of the TSD, for each class, in the year standards
are imposed, using real consumer discount rate of six percent.
Conventional Ovens. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a unit
meeting each of the candidate standard levels. For the representative
class, life-cycle costs for non-self-cleaning ovens at standard levels
1 and 2 are at or less than the baseline unit. Of the five candidate
standard levels, units meeting level 2 have the lowest consumer life-
cycle cost for electric non-self-cleaning ovens. See Technical Support
Document, Table 4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4.
For the representative class of electric ovens, standard level 1
would cause reductions in life-cycle costs for the average consumer of
$6.1; \3\ standard level 2 would reduce average life-cycle costs by
$8.0; \3\ standard level 3 would result in an increase of $6.6; \3\
level 4 would result in an increase of $88.2; \4\ while standard level
5 would result in an increase of $217.1.\4\ See Technical Support
Document, Table 4.18 and Supplemental Table 4.39.
The Department examined the effect of different discount rates (2,
6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. See Figure 4.4, Table
4.4 and Supplemental Table 4.4 in the TSD. Life-cycle cost sensitivity
to changes in energy price and equipment price were analyzed. See
Figure 4.12, Table 4.12, and Supplemental Table 4.35 in the TSD. This
analysis shows that the life-cycle cost minimum using the lowest State
energy price occurs at standard level 1 for electric non-self-cleaning
ovens but remains at standard level 2 for all other energy prices
analyzed.
The Department also calculated paybacks using the energy prices
calculated by the Gas Research Institute (GRI). The life-cycle cost
minimums resulting from the GRI projections remain unchanged from the
analysis using the AEO price forecasts. The payback periods increase
slightly for electric non-self-cleaning ovens using the GRI forecasts,
but these paybacks remain well within the expected life of the product.
Therefore, the GRI prices have no substantial impact on the outcome of
the standard levels analyzed.
The net present value analysis, a measure of the net savings to
society, indicates that for all classes of conventional electric ovens,
standard levels 1-3 would produce a net present value of $0.03 billion
\3\ to consumers. The corresponding values for levels 4 and 5 result in
a negative $2.53 billion and negative $6.23 billion, respectively.\4\
See Technical Support Document, Table 3.6e and Supplemental Table
3.28b.
Conventional Cooking Tops. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a
unit meeting each of the candidate standard levels. For the
representative class, life-cycle costs at all standard levels, except
at max tech, are less than the baseline unit for electric coil
cooktops. Of the five candidate standard levels, units meeting levels 2
and 3 have the lowest consumer life-cycle cost for electric coil
cooktops. It should be noted that for another class, electric smooth
element cooking tops, units meeting the baseline have the lowest
consumer life-cycle costs. See Technical Support Document, Tables 4.1
and 4.2.
For the representative class of electric-coil cooking tops,
standard level 1 would cause no change in life-cycle costs for the
average consumer since it is the same as the baseline; standard levels
2 and 3 would reduce average life-cycle costs by $3.2, and standard
levels 4 and 5 would result in an increase in life-cycle cost of $1.8.
See Technical Support Document, Table 4.15.
The Department examined the effect of different discount rates (2,
6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves. If the discount rate
is increased to 15 percent, the life-cycle cost minimum occurs at the
baseline. See TSD Table 4.1. Life-cycle cost sensitivity to changes in
energy price and equipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.10 and
Table 4.10 in the TSD. This analysis shows that the life-cycle cost
minimum using the lowest State energy price drops to standard level 1
for electric coil cooktops but remains unchanged for all other energy
prices analyzed. The life cycle cost minimum remains unchanged for the
highest State energy price, except for the case including both the
highest State energy price and the highest equipment price, the LCC
minimum occurs at max tech. Consequently, high state energy prices have
no effect on the standard levels analyzed unless equipment prices are
also high.
The net present value analysis, a measure of the net savings to
society, indicates that for all classes of
[[Page 48051]]
conventional electric cooking tops, standard level 1 would produce a
zero net present value; standard levels 2 and 3 would produce a net
present value of $0.03 billion, while standard levels 4 and 5 would
produce negative net present values of $0.09 billion and $3.10 billion,
respectively. See Technical Support Document, Table 3.6b.
Microwave Ovens. A life-cycle cost is calculated for a unit meeting
each of the candidate standard levels. Of the five candidate standard
levels, units meeting the baseline had the lowest consumer life-cycle
cost for microwave ovens. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.8.
Standard levels 1 through 4 would cause no reductions in life-cycle
costs for the average affected consumer, since they are the same as the
baseline for microwave ovens. Standard level 5 would increase average
life-cycle costs by $56.7. See Technical Support Document, Table 4.22.
The Department examined the effect of different discount rates (2,
6, and 15 percent) on the life-cycle cost curves and generally found
little impact. Life-cycle cost sensitivity to changes in energy price
and equipment price were analyzed. See Figure 4.14 and Tables 4.14 in
the TSD. This analysis shows little impact.
The net present value analysis, a measure of the net savings to
society, indicates that for microwave ovens, standard levels 1 through
4 would produce a zero net present value to consumers. The net present
value for level 5 is a negative $4.67 billion. See Technical Support
Document, Table 3.6g.
3. Energy Savings
EPCA requires DOE to consider the total projected energy savings
that result from revised standards. The Department forecasted energy
consumption through the use of the LBL-REM. (See Appendix B of the TSD
for a detailed discussion of the LBL-REM.) See section III. b. in
today's rule for the energy savings of all efficiency levels.
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing classes of products and design options, the
Department tried to eliminate from consideration any design option that
would result in degradation of utility or performance. Thus, a separate
class with a different efficiency standard was created for a product
where the record indicated that the product included a utility or
performance-related feature that affected energy efficiency. Five
separate classes were analyzed; see Table 4-1 in today's rule. In this
way, the Department attempted to minimize the impact of amended
standards on the utility and performance of conventional ovens,
conventional cooking tops, and microwave ovens.
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the Department to
consider the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to
result from the standards, as determined by the Attorney General.
In a letter dated September 16, 1994, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) expressed concern about the effects the standards proposed in the
1994 Proposed Rule might have on industry. DOJ concluded that it is
likely that competition in the manufacture and sale of commercial/
professional-style or high-end ranges and ovens will be eliminated if
the proposed standards are adopted. The Department of Justice also
concluded that there is a possibility that the proposed standard could
force one or more firms out of the manufacture of standard ranges thus
lessening competition. (DOJ, No. 840 at 5.) The September 16, 1994,
letter is printed at the end of today's rule.
The Department of Justice comments were based on the standards
proposed in the 1994 Proposed Rule. Because today's rule is not
promulgating new standards, there will not be significant adverse
effects on industry.
6. Need of the Nation To Save Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency improves the Nation's energy security,
strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts of
energy production.
7. Other Factors
Decreasing future energy demand as a result of standards will
decrease air pollution.
Conventional Ovens.7 Standards would result in a
decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. For standard
level 1, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated
NOX reduction would be approximately 11,000 tons. For
standard levels 2-5, the estimated reductions would be approximately
23,000 tons, 15,000 tons, 227,000 tons, and 227,000 tons, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The emissions calculated in the Draft Report Tables 7.6-7.10
were based on both gas and electric ovens. However, from the
emissions reductions for standard levels 1 and 2 (for which gas
ovens are at the baseline), the emissions reductions per quad can be
approximated for electric ovens over the years 2000 to 2030. These
approximations are 75 million tons CO2 per quad, 135,000
tons NOX per quad, and 150,000 tons SO2 per
quad. Decreases in SO2 emissions will not occur because
the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on SO2 emissions that
will be met under any regulatory regime. Therefore, these reductions
should be interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators for
controlling SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated decreased need to control SOX over the
years 2000 to 2030 would be 12,000 tons, 25,000 tons, 17,000 tons, and
250,000 tons for levels 1-5, respectively.
Another consequence of the standards would be the reduction of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. For standard level 1, over
the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated CO2 reduction
would be approximately 6 million tons. For standard levels 2-5, the
estimated reductions would be 13 million tons, 8 million tons, 126
million tons, and 126 million tons, respectively.
Conventional Cooking Tops.8 Standards would results in a
decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. For standard
level 1, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated
NOX reduction would be zero. During this time period, there
would be no reduction of NOX emissions emitted by power
plants. For standard levels 2-5, the reductions would be approximately
9,000 tons, 9,000 tons, 18,000 tons, and 80,000 tons, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The emissions calculated in the Draft Report Tables 7.1-7.5
were based on both gas and electric cooktops. However, from the
emissions reductions for standard level 2 (for which gas cooktops
are at the baseline), the emissions reductions per quad can be
approximated for electric cooktops over the years 2000 to 2030.
These approximations are 80 million tons CO2 per quad,
180,000 tons NOX per quad, and 220,000 tons
SO2 per quad. Decreases in SO2 emissions will
not occur because the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on
SO2 emissions that will be met under any regulatory
regime. Therefore, these reductions should be interpreted as reduced
costs to electricity generators for controlling SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated decreased need to control SOX over the
years 2000 to 2030 would be 11,000 tons, 11,000 tons, 22,000 tons, and
99,000 tons for levels 2-5, respectively.
Another consequence of the standards would be the reduction of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. For standard level 1, over
the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated CO2 reduction
would be zero because this standard level is at the baseline. During
this time period, there would be no reduction of CO2
emissions emitted by power plants in the United States. For standard
levels 2-5, the reductions would be approximately 4 million tons, 4
million tons, 8 million tons, and 36 million tons, respectively.
Microwave Ovens: Standards would result in a decrease in nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions. For standard levels 1 through 4, over
the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated NOX reduction
would be zero. During this time period, those levels of efficiency
improvement would cause no reduction of NOX emissions from
power plants in the
[[Page 48052]]
United States. For standard level 5, the reduction would be 48,000
tons. The highest peak annual reduction of these levels would be 0.08
percent. See Tables 7.11-7.15 in the TSD. Energy associated with these
standards would also reduce the costs associated with SOX
compliance \9\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Decreases in SO2 emissions will not occur because
the Clean Air Act places a ceiling on SO2 emissions that
will be met under any regulatory regime. Therefore, these reductions
should be interpreted as reduced costs to electricity generators for
controlling SO2. For microwave ovens at standard levels 1
through 4, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated
SO2 reduction would be zero. For standard level 5, the
need to control SO2 would be reduced by an estimated 53,000 tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another consequence of the standards would be the reduction of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. For standard levels 1
through 4, over the years 2000 to 2030, the total estimated
CO2 reduction would be zero. During this time period, there
would be no reduction of CO2 emissions emitted by power
plants in the United States. For standard level 5, the reduction would
be 25 million tons. The highest peak annual reduction of these levels
would be 0.06 percent.
d. Payback Period
If the increase in initial price of an appliance due to a
conservation standard would repay itself to the consumer in energy
savings in less than three years, then it is presumed that such
standard is economically justified.10 EPCA,
Sec. 325(o)(2)(B)(iii), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). This
presumption of economic justification can be rebutted upon a proper
showing. Failure to qualify for this presumption shall not be taken
into consideration in determining whether a standard is economically
justified. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For this calculation, the Department calculated cost-of-
operation based on the DOE test procedures. Therefore, the consumer
is assumed to be an ``average'' consumer as defined by the DOE test
procedures. Consumers who use the products less than the test
procedure assumes will experience a longer payback while those who
use them more than the test procedure assumes will have a shorter
payback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Ovens. Table 4-2 presents the payback periods
11 for the efficiency levels analyzed for the representative
class of conventional ovens. For electric ovens, none of the trial
standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the
additional price of purchasing a product will be less than three times
the value of the energy savings that the consumer will receive during
the first year. See Table 4.18 and Supplemental Table 4.43 in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ These payback periods are weighted averages. They compare
the portion of the projected distributions of designs in the base
case that are less efficient than the standard level to the design
at the standard level. Designs with energy consumption at or below
the standard level are not affected by the standard and are excluded
from the calculation of impacts.
Table 4-2.--Payback Periods of Design Options (Years) for Non-Self-
Cleaning ConventionaL Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback
Standard level period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................... \3\ 4.0
2........................................................... \3\ 6.5
3........................................................... \3\ 14.5
4........................................................... \4\ 22
5........................................................... \4\ 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Cooking Tops. Table 4-3 presents the payback periods
for the efficiency levels analyzed for the representative class of
conventional cooking tops. For electric cooktops, none of the trial
standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption test, i.e., the
additional price of purchasing a product will be less than three times
the value of the energy savings that the consumer will receive during
the first year. See Table 4.15 in the TSD.
Table 4-3.--Payback Periods of Design Options (Years) for Conventional
Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback
Standard level period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................................... N/A
2........................................................... 6.5
3........................................................... 6.5
4........................................................... 13
5........................................................... 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microwave Ovens. Table 4-4 presents the payback period for the
efficiency levels analyzed for microwave ovens. For microwave ovens,
none of the trial standard levels satisfies the rebuttable presumption
test, i.e., the additional price of purchasing a product will be less
than three times the value of the energy savings that the consumer will
receive during the first year. See Table 4.22 in the TSD.
Table 4-4.--Payback Periods of Design Options (Years) for Microwave
Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback
Standard level period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................ N/A
2............................................................ N/A
3............................................................ N/A
4............................................................ N/A
5............................................................ 79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Conclusion
1. Product Name Change
The Department is changing the name of this product from ``kitchen
ranges and ovens'' to ``cooking products.'' This change is made because
the term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' does not accurately describe the
products considered which include microwave ovens, conventional ranges,
cooktops, and ovens. To be consistent with this change, the Department
is adding a regulatory definition of ``cooking products'' that is the
same as the existing definition of ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' to
Title 10 CFR Part 430.2.
2. Standards
Section 325(o)(2)(A) of the Act specifies that the Department must
establish standards that ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified.'' EPCA, Sec. 325(o)(2)(A). Technologically
feasible design options are ``technologies which can be incorporated in
commercial products or in working prototypes.'' 10 CFR Part 430,
Appendix A to Subpart C, 4(a)(4)(i). A standard level is economically
justified if the benefits exceed the burdens. EPCA,
Sec. 325(o)(2)(B)(i).
A maximum technologically feasible (max tech) design option was
identified for each class of cooking products. The max tech levels were
derived by adding energy-conserving engineering design options to the
baseline units for each of the respective classes in order of
decreasing consumer payback. A complete discussion of each max tech
level, and the design options included in each, is found in the
Engineering Analysis in the TSD, Chapter 1. Table 5-1 presents the
Department's max tech performance levels for all classes of the subject
products:
Table 5-1.--Cooking Products Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Annual energy use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric oven, self-cleaning............... 213.7 kWh.
Electric oven, non-self-cleaning........... 162.4 kWh.
Microwave oven............................. 132.4 kWh.
Electric cooktop, coil element............. 229.9 kWh.
Electric cooktop, smooth element........... 206.4 kWh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48053]]
Accordingly, DOE first considered the max tech level of efficiency,
i.e., standard level 5.
Conventional Ovens 12. Of the standard levels analyzed,
level 5 will save the most energy (1.68 quads between 2000 and 2030).
In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that the
representative class of conventional ovens will incorporate improved
door seals, reduced venting, increased and improved insulation, forced
convection, an oven separator, would be biradiant and have reduced
conduction losses. However, the payback at this standard level of 36
years for the representative class exceeds the 19-year product life. At
this standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and
negative net present value. The Department therefore concludes that the
burdens of standard level 5 for conventional ovens outweigh the
benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Standard levels 1-3 were reanalyzed in the Supplemental
Analysis (which used AEO 97 energy forecasts), and standard levels
4-5 were not reanalyzed and are based solely on the Draft Report,
using AEO 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next most stringent standard level is standard level 4. This
standard level is projected to save 1.68 quads of energy. In order to
meet this standard, the Department assumes that the representative
class of conventional ovens will incorporate improved door seals,
reduced venting, increased and improved insulation, and would be
biradiant. However, for the representative class the payback at this
standard level is 22 years. This standard level increases the life-
cycle costs for both classes of electric ovens. In addition, this
standard level results in a negative net present value for all classes
of conventional ovens. The Department therefore concludes that the
burdens of standard level 4 for conventional ovens outweigh the
benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
The next most stringent standard level is standard level 3. This
standard level is projected to save 0.03 quad of energy. In order to
meet this standard, the Department assumes that all conventional
electric ovens incorporate improved door seals, reduced venting, and
improved insulation. The payback at this standard level is 14 years.
This standard level increases the life-cycle costs for the
representative class of electric ovens. The Department therefore
concludes that the burdens of standard level 3 for conventional ovens
outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
The next most stringent standard level is standard level 2. In the
Supplemental Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 2 was
projected to save 0.1 quad of energy. In order to meet this standard,
the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional
ovens will incorporate reduced venting and improved insulation.
However, the savings estimates the Department used were based on the
assumption that efficiency gains could be achieved by reducing the vent
rate and improving the type of insulation used. As discussed in section
``II. Discussion of Comments, reduced vent size'' the Department has
determined that there may not be energy savings from reduced venting.
Thus, in order to evaluate the energy savings and consumer impacts of
improved insulation only, the Department has considered the incremental
differences between trial standard level 1 (which consisted of reduced
venting) and trial standard level 2 (which adds improved insulation).
Thus, standard level 1 essentially becomes the baseline for this
evaluation. Excluding the effects of reduced venting on standard level
2 lowers the energy savings from the reported 0.1 quad to approximately
0.05 quad, reduces the life-cycle cost savings from the reported $6 to
approximately to $2, and increases the payback to from the reported 6.5
years to approximately 9 years (compared to the expected life of 19
years). Additionally, because currently ovens are not labeled or tested
for energy consumption and therefore performance data on specific ovens
does not exist, it is unknown whether all non-self-cleaning electric
ovens would meet a specific performance standard by the addition of
insulation alone. Consequently, there is a risk that in order to bring
some electric non-self-cleaning ovens into compliance with a
performance standard, manufacturers would need to use additional design
options. The analysis found no other design options to be cost
effective. The additional cost would be passed on to consumers. DOE
could perform additional testing on electric non-self-cleaning ovens,
but given the modest savings (.05 quad), the burden of performance and
a certification program, as well as the adverse manufacturer and
consumer impacts for ovens that might not achieve a performance
standard by using insulation alone, DOE concluded that the burdens of
standard level 2 outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard
level.
The next most stringent standard level is standard level 1. In the
Supplemental Analysis prepared in Fall 1997, standard level 1 was
projected to save 0.05 quad of energy. In order to meet this standard,
the Department assumes that the representative class of conventional
ovens will incorporate reduced venting. As discussed in the
``comments'' section, the Department has determined that there would
likely not be any energy savings from standard level 1. Therefore, the
Department rejects standard level 1.
Conventional Cooking Tops 13. Of the standard levels
analyzed, level 5 will save the most energy (0.45 quad between 2000 and
2030). In order to meet this standard, the Department assumes that the
representative class of conventional cooking tops will have reflective
surfaces and would have improved element contact conductance. At this
standard level, all classes have increased life-cycle costs and
negative net present value. The Department therefore concludes that the
burdens of standard level 5 for conventional cooktops outweigh the
benefits, and DOE rejects the standard level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Cooktops and microwave ovens were not reanalyzed in the
Supplemental Analysis, therefore they are based solely on the Draft
Report, using AEO 95 energy forecasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next most stringent standard level is standard level 4. This
standard level is projected to save 0.1 quad of energy. In order to
meet this standard, electric-coil cooking tops would have improved
element contact conductance and reflective surfaces. However, this
standards level results in a negative net present value and increased
life-cycle costs for the representative class of conventional cooktops.
The Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 4
for conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the
standard level.
The next most stringent standard level is standard level 3. In
order to meet this standard, electric-coil cooking tops would have
improved element contact conductance. This standard level is projected
to save the average consumer approximately $3 over the life of the
product, using AEO 95 energy price forecasts. This standard level is
projected to save 0.05 quad of energy; however, the Department has
concerns as to whether this energy saving will be realized. Cooktops
are somewhat unique in that they are completely controlled by the
consumer. They are not thermostatically controlled, as are
refrigerators, nor do they operate in a cyclical mode like a
dishwasher. They are operated for an amount of time determined by the
consumer to complete a cooking task. Given the small relative
efficiency improvement of this design level, 4.3 percent, the
[[Page 48054]]
savings would only be realized if consumers reduced their cooking times
by 4.3 percent. While this is theoretically possible, especially for
cooking tasks that have a possible definite end point such as boiling
water or melting butter which would occur 4.3 percent faster, it seems
highly questionable that consumer behavior would change for the
majority of cooking tasks to perform them in 4.3 percent less time. The
savings do not occur unless this consumer behavior change takes place.
Given the questionable nature of the energy savings, the Department
believes that the burdens of a testing and certification program and
the possible manufacturer impacts for cooktops that might not achieve a
performance standard outweigh the benefits of the standard. The
Department concludes that the burdens of standard level 3 for
conventional cooktops outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the
standard level.
Standard level 2 is identical to standard level 3 for electric
cooktops, and standard level 1 is at the baseline. Consequently, the
Department is not issuing a standard for conventional cooktops because
the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels analyzed.
Microwave Ovens \13\. Of the standard levels analyzed, level 5 will
save the most energy (0.33 quad between 2000 and 2030). In order to
meet this standard, the Department assumes that all microwave ovens
will incorporate reflective surfaces and more efficient power supplies,
fans, and magnetrons. However, the payback at this standard level of 79
years exceeds the 10-year product life. In addition this level produces
increased life-cycle costs and a negative net present value. The
Department therefore concludes that the burdens of standard level 5 for
microwave ovens outweigh the benefits, and DOE rejects the standard
level.
Standard levels 1 through 4 are at the baseline. The Department is
not issuing a standard for microwave ovens because the burdens outweigh
the benefits for all standard levels analyzed.
After carefully considering the analysis, the Department is not
issuing a standard for electric cooking products because the Department
believes the burdens outweigh the benefits for all standard levels and
all classes of these products.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
a. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
In issuing the proposed rule, the Department prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0819) that was published within
the Technical Support Document for the Proposed Rule. (DOE/EE-0009,
November 1993.) The environmental effects associated with various
standard levels were found to be not significant, and a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was published. 59 FR 15869 (April 5, 1994).
Because the Department is not issuing now a new standard for these
products, there are no environmental impacts associated with today's
rule.
b. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
Today's rule has been determined not to be a ``significant
regulatory action,'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735), and has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
c. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 081980 (Pub. L. 96-354), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., requires an assessment of the impact of regulations on
small businesses unless an agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses and other small entities. Because the Department is not
issuing a new standard, this final rule will not have significant
economic impact on manufacturers of cooking products. DOE certifies
that today's final rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no Office of Management and Budget
clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.
e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final
rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final regulations
meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
f. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
It has been determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988) that this regulation
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
g. Federalism Review
Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' 52 FR 41685 (October 30,
1987) requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other
policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels
of government. If there are sufficient, substantial direct effects,
then Executive Order 12612 requires preparation of a federalism
assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and
implementing a regulation or a rule. The Department finds that this
final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on State
governments.
[[Page 48055]]
h. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
With respect to a proposed regulatory action that may result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year, section
202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires a
Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits
and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b). Under
section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is
required. DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most
cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing
otherwise or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with
law. This final rule does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local,
or tribal governments or on the private sector.
i. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996
Consistent with Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, DOE will submit to
Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule before
the effective date set forth in the outset of this notice. The report
will state that it has been determined that this rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(a).
V. Department of Justice Views on the Proposed Rule.
September 16, 1994
Honorable Christine A. Ervin
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy,
United States Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585
Dear Ms. Ervin:
By letter dated March 14, 1994, the Department of Energy
(``DOE'') transmitted to the Attorney General a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (59 FR 10464) addressing energy standards for eight
classes of household appliances. Those classes are: room air
conditioners, water heaters, direct heating equipment, mobile home
furnaces, kitchen ranges and ovens, pool heaters, fluorescent lamp
ballasts and television sets. Section 325 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended in 1992 (42 U.S. C. 6295), (``the Act:)
requires the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of
any lessening of competition likely to result from the proposed
standards. This letter contains the competitive impact determination
of the Department of Justice. (``Department'')
Summary
The evidence available to the Department does not indicate that
any significant lessening of competition is likely to result from
the imposition of the proposed standards for mobile home furnaces
and pool heaters contained in the Notice. For television sets,
fluorescent lamp ballasts and professional-style or high-end kitchen
ranges it is the Department's judgement based on the available
evidence that significant anticompetitive effects are likely to
occur. For electric water heaters the evidence indicates that a
significant anticompetitive effect could take place if sufficient
time is not permitted firms to develop, produce and market products
complying with the new standard. For microwave ovens, oil-fired
water heaters, room air conditioners, and direct heating equipment
the evidence indicates that anticompetitive effects could result;
the Department is unable on the basis of the available evidence to
determine whether such effects are likely. Finally, the evidence
indicates that the cumulative effects of these and other regulatory
standards could be to lessen competition in certain markets for
household appliances.
In preparing these comments the Department has considered the
Notice, the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared by Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, written comments and oral comments collected by
the department in the time allowed and without the benefit of
compulsory process.
Discussion
Adoption of standards requiring greater energy efficiency in
household appliances could affect competition in a number of ways.
First, by raising the cost of appliances and reducing design and
feature choices, standards may lower demand. If standards impose
costs on manufacturers that can not be passed to consumers they can
lower manufacturers' rates of return. Either one or both of these
effects could cause manufacturers to exist the market with the
effect of lessening competition and raising prices. Second,
imposition of standards may lessen or discourage competition in the
design and development of new product features or technologies; such
competition benefits consumers and the economy.
The record in this proceeding raises many factual issues
relating, among other things, to the technical feasibility of
certain standards, their economic impact on manufacturers and
consumers and consumer reaction to the changes in products that they
might require. In numerous instances, industry representatives and
technical consultants retained by them have challenged assumptions
and conclusions in the Notice and TSD. The Department is not in a
position to resolve many of these contested issues on the basis of
the available record. Accordingly, in some instances, the Department
is unable to reach a conclusion about the impact of the proposed
standards on competition.
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
One technical issue that has been raised is whether the proposed
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts are attainable with
currently available technology. Numerous ballast manufacturers
assert that in many instances they are not. The Department concludes
that the doubts raised about the technical feasibility of the
standards are serious and affect a substantial number of ballast
classes. Thus, if the proposed standards were adopted some or all
manufacturers would likely have to cease the production of many
products and competition in the sale of those products would cease
or diminish.
Television Sets and Related Technologies
1. The weight of available evidence is that adoption of the
proposed standard for television sets could force all or many
manufacturers to revise their products to lessen the number and
quality of their features. Many in the industry contend that the
only way to produce products that will comply with the standard
would be to reduce or eliminate features that consume electricity
such as brighter pictures, remote control, picture-in-picture,
improved sound and in-set program guides and other features
presently being developed. Development and marketing of product
improvements and new features has been an important factor driving
competition in the market for television sets. Reducing or retarding
the development of such features could substantially reduce demand
for sets, retard development and refinement of technology, and
reduce utility of the product.
Manufacturers might attempt to circumvent the proposed standard
by letting features ``migrate''--incorporating them in units to be
sold separately or packaged with television sets. It is claimed that
disaggregating features in this manner will decrease overall
television energy efficiency. There is evidence that it could also
lessen competition because the development and marketing of features
in such attached units could be costly and cumbersome, among other
things encountering receivers that receive cable signals.
There is evidence that the proposed standard for television sets
could affect competition in other markets. Representatives of the
television industry assert that as the ``Information Highway''
develops television manufacturers intend to expand the capabilities
of their products to include new features to enable them to serve as
in-home devices for data transmission and communication. They argue
that the TV receiver, already located in virtually every American
home, could be a uniquely efficient vehicle for the introduction of
new data-processing and communication devices. The Department does
not make final judgement on this contention but does conclude that,
given the apparent difficulties in the marketing of new features as
part of attached units, the standard is likely to retard the
development of technology and inhibit the ability of television
manufacturers to compete with computer manufacturers and other in
the development of new technologies and features for the Information
Highway.
[[Page 48056]]
Professional-Style and Standard Ranges
The Notice proposes a single set of standards for gas ovens and
cooking tops in household ranges. There is substantial evidence that
one category of home range cannot be manufactured to meet these
proposed standards without losing so much of its distinct
characteristics that it is no longer marketable. Professional-style
or high-end ranges are products designed to provide some of the
performance characteristics of professional or restaurant ranges for
home kitchens. Some of these characteristics which differentiate
them from standard kitchen ranges, such as high performance burners
and ovens, involve considerably more energy consumption than do
standard ranges; the special uses and appeal of these products, and
their premium in price, depends in good measure on these features.
Representatives of the range industry assert that high-end ranges
cannot be modified to comply with the proposed standards without
giving up so much of the special features of the product that they
are no longer marketable. The Department concludes that it is likely
that competition in the manufacture and sale of these products will
be eliminated if the proposed standards are adopted.
While not as strong as the evidence relating to professional
style ranges there is evidence challenging the conclusions in the
TSD that the proposed standards for standard gas and electric range
ovens and cooking tops will not require significant retooling or
redesign and will have not more than minimal impact on
manufacturers' long run rates of return on equity. The Association
of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends that the standard could
have a destructive impact on the range industry. It and various
range manufacturers claim that design options suggested in the TSD
are not effective and that compliance would require substantial
investment in redesign and retooling. The Association also insists
that suppliers of equipment and technology necessary to comply may
not be able to respond simultaneously and evenly to range
manufacturers, a problem that could impose a competitive handicap on
some range manufacturers.
A range manufacturer has commented that compliance with the
standard cold seriously weaken it and its ability to compete. There
is also evidence that the cumulative costs of compliance with this
standard and with other and future appliance standards could induce
or force ``full line'' appliance manufacturers to exit one or more
of the markets that they serve. The range market is concentrated
and, while there is conflicting evidence, the Department concludes
that there is a possibility that this proposed standard could force
one or more firms out of the manufacture of standard ranges thus
lessening competition.
Microwave Ovens
The Notice and the TSD conclude that the proposed standard for
microwave ovens will not involve any substantial redesign or
retooling by manufacturers and will have little impact on their long
run returns on equity. Representatives of the industry strongly
challenge these conclusions. For example, a representative of MCD
Corporation has testified that compliance with the standard would
require that her company, a manufacturer of microwaves, make large
investments in retooling, and would threaten its viability. The
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers contends that the
standard will in all likelihood eliminate all U.S. Production of
microwaves and concentrate U.S. sales in the hands of one or two
companies. The Department is not in a position to resolve all of the
contested technical and financial issues but concludes that this
proposed standard could force some significant producers from this
concentrated market and substantially lessen competition in it.
Room Air Conditioners
The Notice and TSD conclude that this proposed standard will not
involve substantial redesign or retooling and, while it may produce
some reductions in the short run, will have little or no effect on
manufacturers' long run returns on equity. This conclusion has been
challenged by firms in the industry. There is evidence that some of
the design options suggested in the Notice are less effective and
more costly than the TSD assumes and that manufacturers may, among
other things, need to redesign the chassis of some classes to comply
with the standard. Such redesigns could add to unit installation
costs, make units larger and more cumbersome to install, and
otherwise depress demand. There is evidence that at least one
product, the five thousand BTU unit, may cease to be manufactured if
the standard is adopted. There are also unresolved issues about such
matters as the availability and efficacy of some design options
suggested in the TSD. The Department is not able to resolve these
issues but concludes that the standard could have a substantial
negative impact on demand and rates of return, and cause one or more
firms to cease the manufacture and sale of some of these products,
thus lessening competition.
Direct Heating Equipment
Manufacturers of direct heating equipment contend that this
standard will seriously depress demand for their product and likely
force some, perhaps all, manufacturers out of this business. Among
other things, they contend that the TSD substantially underestimates
the added costs of manufacture, and also the added installation
costs for venting and wiring, that will be required. They insist
that consumer cost increases will seriously depress demand for their
product and that their profit margins will suffer because it will be
impossible to pass on much of the increased manufacturing costs to
consumers. The Department cannot resolve many of these issues but
concludes that there is a possibility that several of the five
companies that account for most of the production of these products
might exit the market if the standard is adopted thus substantially
lessening competition.
Water Heaters
Manufacturers of oil-fired heaters content that the proposed
standard for their product class would threaten the survival of the
product, likely forcing all or most producers out of this business.
Some claim that it may not be possible with presently available
technology to design and manufacture a product that would comply.
Manufacturers assert that the added costs of producing a product in
compliance with the standard would, in any event, be considerably
higher than the TSD indicates and that increases in price would very
seriously depress consumer demand for this product. Five firms, two
of them Canadian producers, account for most of the sales of this
product in the U.S. The Department is not able to resolve all the
questions raised regarding this standard; it concludes that there is
at least a possibility that the standard might force one or more of
these competitors to exist the U.S. market. Another firm has been
taking steps to enter the oil-fired water heater market; adoption of
the standard may deter it from doing so. The loss of one such firm
could result in a substantial lessening of competition.
DOE's proposed standard for electric water heaters would, in
effect, require that such products have an integral heat pump. DOE
concedes that this would involve major changes and might cause one
or more existing firms to cease the marketing of electric water
heaters but believes that other firms such as air conditioner
manufacturers may begin producing electric water heaters as a result
of the standard. There are complex and unresolved issues as to what
would happen to demand for electric water heaters if consumers were
required to purchase heat pumps with them. It seems clear that the
price of such units will be considerably higher than that of the
electric resistance heaters that the standard would remove from the
market, but the range of future prices, costs of installation and
maintenance and degree of consumer acceptance of a product that has
not been widely accepted until now are very difficult to predict.
Heat pump water heaters may be useful and economically attractive to
many consumers but serious issues have been raised in this
proceeding as to whether certain kinds of consumers, such as
households with relatively little demand for hot water, will derive
a benefit from the product.
Even if the heat pump water heater is eventually widely accepted
in the market the Department has concluded that it is likely that
competition will be adversely affected for some period of time if
adequate time is not permitted for the phasing in of the standard.
Three millions units or more of electric resistance units are now
sold annually in the U.S. Only a few thousand heat pump units are
now produced annually in this country, by two firms. It could take a
considerable time for other firms to design new product lines and
being substantial ne production capacity on line. there is also
evidence from those with experience with the product that heat pump
water heaters require special maintenance and servicing.
Considerable time may be required for firms to develop and train
adequate distribution and service networks if they are to compete
effectively. If adequate time for phasing in the standard is not
allowed, for a considerable period of time there could be fewer
companies competing effectively in the electric water heater
business than there are now, and competition in this concentrated
market could be substantially lessened.
[[Page 48057]]
Cumulative Effects of Regulation
Many of the manufacturers of appliances subject to the proposed
standards manufacture several different types of appliance, each
subject to those standards or to others authorized by the Act. As
indicated above, there is evidence that compliance with some of
these standards may require manufacturers to make considerable
investments. It is anticipated that future standards for other
appliances could require manufacturers to make similar investments.
Full-line manufacturers such as General Electric, Whirlpool,
Frigidaire, Amana and Maytag could thus be required to make changes
in several product lines.
As the TSD recognizes, it is difficult for manufacturers to pass
redesign and retooling costs on to consumers. And the impact of a
single product redesign may fall more heavily on firms with small
shares of the market since they must write off their costs against
less sales volume. There is some evidence that firms, particularly
the smaller ones, facing the prospect of repeated redesigns
involving several different products, may be induced to cease
manufacturing one or more of such product lines. Thus to a degree
that we can not fully assess there is a possibility that the
cumulative effect of these and future energy efficiency standards
could be to lessen competition in one or more home appliance
markets.
Sincerely yours,
Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy Conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 22, 1998.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
For the reasons set forth in the preamble Part 430 of Chapter II of
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below.
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
2. Section 430.2 of Subpart A is amended by removing the
definitions for ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' and ``other kitchen ranges
and ovens'' and adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions for
``cooking products'' and ``other cooking products'' to read as follows:
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cooking products means 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. They must be one of the following
classes: conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional
ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking
products.
* * * * *
Other cooking products means any class of cooking products other
than the conventional range, conventional cooking top, conventional
oven, microwave oven, and microwave/conventional range classes.
* * * * *
3. Section 430.32 of Subpart C is amended by revising paragraph (j)
to read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy conservation standards and effective dates.
* * * * *
(j) Cooking Products. Gas cooking products with an electrical
supply cord shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light.
This standard is effective on January 1, 1990.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-23886 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
