Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-00610

Proposed Rule2023-00610

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

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 1, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer conventional cooking products. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking ("SNOPR"), DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6818-6904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00610]

[[Page 6817]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 21

February 1, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 6818]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AD15

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

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of
public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including consumer
conventional cooking products. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department
of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. In this supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR''), DOE proposes new and amended
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on
these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday,
January 31, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this
document, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this SNOPR no later than April 3, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before March 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, under docket
number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, by any of the
following methods:
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#60230f0e16050e14090f0e010c230f0f0b090e0730120f041503141352505154333424505050552005054e040f054e070f16">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include
the docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the
message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abcec5ced9ccd285d8dfcac5cfcad9cfd8ebded8cfc4c185ccc4dd">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f7e4f4f53565e515c5a6c4b5e515b5e4d5b4c6e4a5a4c4b5650514c7f5a5a115b505a11585049">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d0028212c23242863012c203d3922230d253c63292228632a223b">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#561726263a3f3738353305223738323724322507233325223f3938251633337832393378313920">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
c. Evaluated Product Classes
2. Technology Options
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops

[[Page 6819]]

b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
c. Conventional Ovens
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
b. Conventional Ovens
4. Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy and Gas Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Markup Scenarios
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Consumer
Conventional Cooking Products Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description of Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317). Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309). These products include consumer conventional cooking
products, the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, the new
or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). EPCA also provides that not later
than six years after issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice
of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)).
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products. Per its authority
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2), DOE proposes to remove the existing
prescriptive standard for gas cooking tops prohibiting a constant
burning pilot light. Instead, for conventional cooking tops, DOE
proposes performance standards only, shown in Table I.1 which are the
maximum allowable integrated annual energy consumption (``IAEC'') and
expressed in kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/year'') for electric
cooking tops and thousand British thermal units per year (``kBtu/
year'') for gas cooking tops. The IAEC includes active mode, standby
mode, and off mode energy use. These proposed standards for
conventional cooking tops, if adopted, would apply to all product
classes listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States starting on the date three years after the publication of
any final rule for this rulemaking. DOE notes that constant burning
pilot lights, which are currently prohibited under the existing
prescriptive standard for gas cooking tops, 10 CFR 430.32(j), consume
approximately 2,000 kBtu/year. While DOE's proposal would remove this
prescriptive requirement from its regulations, DOE notes that, based on
its review of the existing prescriptive standard prohibiting constant
burning pilots for gas cooking tops, the proposed

[[Page 6820]]

performance standards of 1,204 kBtu per year for gas cooking tops would
not be achievable by products if they were to incorporate a constant
burning pilot.

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Performance Standards for
Conventional Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum integrated annual
Product class energy consumption (IAEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops.... 199 kWh/year.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops......... 207 kWh/year.
Gas Cooking Tops............................. 1,204 kBtu/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For conventional ovens, the proposed standard is a prescriptive
design requirement for the control system of the oven. Conventional
ovens shall not be equipped with a control system that uses a linear
power supply. (See Table I.2). These proposed standards, if adopted,
would apply to all conventional ovens manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States starting on the date three years after the
publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. DOE also notes that
the current prescriptive standards for conventional gas ovens
prohibiting constant burning pilot lights would continue to be
applicable. (10 CFR 430.32(j)). Table I.2 provides a summary of the
proposed standards for conventional ovens.

Table I.2--Proposed Prescriptive Energy Conservation Standards for
Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current SNOPR
Product class Current standard proposed standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Standard, None............. Shall not be equipped
Freestanding. with a control
Electric Standard, Built-In/ system that uses
Slide-In.. linear power
supply.*
Electric Self-Clean,
Freestanding.
Electric Self-Clean, Built-In/
Slide-In.
Gas Standard, Freestanding.... No constant The control system
Gas Standard, Built-In/Slide- burning pilot for gas ovens shall:
In.. light. (1) Not be equipped
Gas Self-Clean, Freestanding.. with a constant
burning pilot light;
and
(2) Not be equipped
with a linear power
supply.*
Gas Self-Clean, Built-In/Slide-
In.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A linear power supply produces unregulated as well as regulated power.
The unregulated portion of a linear power supply typically consists of
a transformer that steps alternating current (``AC'') line voltage
down, a voltage rectifier circuit for AC to direct current (``DC'')
conversion, and a capacitor to produce unregulated, direct current
output. Linear power supplies are described in section IV.C.1.b of
this SNOPR.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards, represented by trial standard level (``TSL'') 2, on
consumers of conventional cooking products, as measured by the average
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\3\ The shipment-weighted average LCC savings are positive
for all product classes, and the shipment-weighted PBP is less than the
average lifetime of consumer conventional cooking products, which is
estimated to be 16.8 years for electric cooking products and 14.5 years
for gas cooking products (see section IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table I.3--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Conventional Cooking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC savings Simple payback period
Product class (2021$) (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops *.................... $0.00 n.a.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops........................... 13.29 0.6
Gas Cooking Tops............................................... 21.89 5.0
Electric Standard Ovens, Freestanding.......................... 0.99 1.7
Electric Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In..................... 0.95 1.8
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding........................ 1.02 1.7
Electric Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In................... 1.01 1.8
Gas Standard Ovens, Freestanding............................... 0.65 1.9
Gas Standard Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In.......................... 0.59 2.0
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Freestanding............................. 0.70 1.9
Gas Self-Clean Ovens, Built-In/Slide-In........................ 0.60 2.0
Shipment-weighted Average **................................... 6.75 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the standard at the proposed TSL is the baseline.
** Results are weighted by projected shipments of the compliance year (2027).

[[Page 6821]]

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of
9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of consumer
conventional cooking products in the case without new and amended
standards is $1,607 million in 2021 dollars. Under the proposed
standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -9.6 percent
to -9.4 percent, which is approximately -$154.8 million to -$150.4
million. In order to bring products into compliance with new and
amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total
conversion costs of $183.4 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products would save a
significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new and
amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended
standards (2027-2056) amount to 0.46 quadrillion British thermal units
(``Btu''), or quads.\5\ This represents a savings of 3.4 percent
relative to the energy use of these products in the case without
amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking
products ranges from $0.65 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to
$1.71 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the
estimated increased product and installation costs for consumer
conventional cooking products purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for consumer conventional
cooking products are projected to yield significant environmental
benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in
cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy
savings) of 21.9 million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ of carbon dioxide
(``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 2.2 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 51.8 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 244.9 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.1 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.01 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG'').\8\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\9\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section
IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate are estimated to be $1.17 billion. DOE does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in the
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in
this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction
and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible
under law.
\9\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits from SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would
be $0.61 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.63 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor
health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Table I.4 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking
products. There are other important unquantified effects, including
certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health
benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants, direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and other emissions that affect both indoor and
outdoor air quality, unquantified energy security benefits, and
distributional effects, among others.

[[Page 6822]]

Table I.4--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
[TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 2.28
Climate Benefits *...................................... 1.17
Health Benefits **...................................... 1.63
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]....................... 5.08
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 0.56
Net Monetized Benefits.................................. 4.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 0.95
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................... 1.17
Health Benefits **...................................... 0.61
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]....................... 2.74
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 0.31
Net Monetized Benefits.................................. 2.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with
consumer conventional cooking products shipped in 2027--2056. These
results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the
products shipped in 2027--2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087)
granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.

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

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

The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered
products and are measured for the lifetime of consumer conventional
cooking products shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with
reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are
also calculated based on the lifetime of consumer conventional cooking
products shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent
and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs
with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG are presented for all
four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $32.5 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $100.8 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $67.0 million in climate benefits,
and $64.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $200.3 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $32.2 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$130.7 million in reduced operating costs, $67.0 million in climate
benefits, and $93.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $259.2 million per year.

[[Page 6823]]

Table I.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional
Cooking Products
[TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 130.7 124.7 137.9
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 67.0 65.3 68.4
Health Benefits **.............................................. 93.8 91.4 95.6
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]............................... 291.5 281.4 301.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 32.2 36.1 31.4
Net Monetized Benefits.......................................... 259.2 245.2 270.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 100.8 96.5 105.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 67.0 65.3 68.4
Health Benefits **.............................................. 64.9 63.4 66.0
Total Monetized Benefits [dagger]............................... 232.8 225.3 240.2
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 32.5 35.8 31.8
Net Monetized Benefits.......................................... 200.3 189.5 208.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer conventional cooking products shipped
in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in
2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In
addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline
rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods
used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that
the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal
government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Aa
reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability
to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are
already commercially available for all product classes covered by this
proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the
benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards. That conclusion remains true under
any reasonable analytical assumption--i.e., the proposed standards are
net beneficial under any discount rate (both for climate and non-
climate benefits and costs), any cost scenario, and any other scenario
DOE analyzed. Moreover, because consumer operating cost savings and
health benefits alone greatly exceed costs under all such assumptions
and scenarios, DOE noted that this conclusion does not depend on
climate benefits (though DOE's estimates of climate benefits remain
important and robust).
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for consumer conventional cooking products is $32.5
million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $100.8 million in reduced product operating costs, $67.0
million in climate benefits and $64.9 million in health benefits. The
net monetized benefit amounts to $200.3 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\12\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with

[[Page 6824]]

relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance
of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 0.46 quads FFC, the equivalent of
the electricity use of 19 million residential homes in one year. The
NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $0.65
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.71 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions
associated with these energy savings are 21.9 Mt of CO<INF>2</INF>, 2.2
thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 51.8 thousand tons of NO<INF>X</INF>,
0.01 tons of Hg, 244.9 thousand tons of CH<INF>4</INF>, and 0.1
thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated monetary value of the
climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $1.17 billion. The
estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions is $0.61 billion using a 7-
percent discount rate and $1.63 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document
and the accompanying technical support document (``TSD'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking.
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the
projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include consumer
conventional cooking products, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10)). EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)), and directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(2)). EPCA further provides that, not later than six years after
the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)). DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(r)). Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE
test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products
comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under
EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy
use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) & 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine
whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for conventional cooking
tops appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'')
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 (``appendix I1''). There are currently
no DOE test procedures for conventional ovens.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including consumer conventional
cooking products. Any new or amended standard for a covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) & 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt
any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on 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 products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products 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

[[Page 6825]]

result from the imposition of the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)).
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)).
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4)).
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)). In determining whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)).
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)). Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)). DOE's current test procedures for conventional
cooking tops address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this
rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops that it may
adopt. As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE does not
have a current test procedure for conventional ovens. As a result, a
performance standard that addresses standby mode and off mode energy
use is not feasible for conventional ovens. However, in this SNOPR, DOE
is proposing to adopt prescriptive design requirements for the control
system of conventional ovens that would address standby mode and off
mode energy use.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on April 8, 2009 (``April 2009 Final
Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products that prohibits constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. These standards are set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2).
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Consumer Conventional Cooking
Products
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (``NAECA''),
Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for
gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical
supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not to
be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C.
6295(h)(1)). NAECA also directed DOE to conduct two cycles of
rulemakings to determine if more stringent or additional standards were
justified for kitchen ranges and ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)).
DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a
final rule on September 8, 1998, which found that no standards were
justified for conventional electric cooking products at that time. 63
FR 48038. In addition, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively
demonstrating at that time that elimination of standing pilots for
conventional gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord was
economically justified, DOE did not include amended standards for
conventional gas cooking products in the final rule. 63 FR 48038,
48039-48040. For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published the
April 2009 Final Rule amending the energy conservation standards for
consumer conventional cooking products to prohibit constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on or after
April 9, 2012. DOE decided to not adopt energy conservation standards
pertaining to the cooking efficiency of conventional electric cooking
products because it determined that such standards would not be
technologically feasible and economically justified at that time. 74 FR
16040, 16085.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ As part of the April 2009 Final Rule, DOE decided not to
adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking
efficiency of microwave ovens. DOE has since published a final rule
on June 17, 2013, adopting energy conservation standards for
microwave oven standby mode and off mode. 78 FR 36316. DOE is not
considering energy conservation standards for microwave ovens as
part of this proposed rule. A separate rulemaking is underway
addressing energy conservation standards for microwave ovens. See
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted, EPCA requires that, not later than six years after the
issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notification of
determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). On February 12, 2014, DOE published a request
for information (``RFI'') document (``February 2014 RFI'') to initiate
the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA. 79 FR 8337. In making
this determination, DOE must evaluate whether new or amended standards
would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2) be both
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (``June 2015 NOPR'')
proposing

[[Page 6826]]

new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
ovens. 80 FR 33030. In the June 2015 NOPR, DOE noted that it was
deferring its decision regarding whether to adopt amended energy
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops, pending further
study. 80 FR 33030, 33038-33040.
On September 2, 2016, DOE published an SNOPR (``September 2016
SNOPR'') proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops based on the amendments to the test procedure
as proposed in a test procedure SNOPR published on August 22, 2016
(``August 2016 TP SNOPR;'' 81 FR 57374). 81 FR 60784. In the September
2016 SNOPR, DOE also revised its proposal from the June 2015 NOPR for
conventional ovens from a performance-based standard to a prescriptive
standard given that DOE had proposed to repeal the test procedure for
conventional ovens in the August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60793-
60794. (The history of the test procedures for conventional cooking
tops and conventional ovens is discussed in greater detail in section
III.C of this document.)
On December 14, 2020, DOE published a notification of proposed
determination (``NOPD'') proposing not to amend the energy conservation
standards for consumer conventional cooking products (``December 2020
NOPD''). 85 FR 80982. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE initially
determined that amended energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional cooking products would not be economically justified and
would not result in a significant conservation of energy.
DOE held a public meeting on January 28, 2021, to solicit feedback
from stakeholders concerning the December 2020 NOPD, and received
comments in response to the December 2020 NOPD from the interested
parties listed in Table II.1.

Table II--December 2020 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Abbreviation Docket No. Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Adkins............................ Adkins.................... 81 Individual.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM...................... 84 Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
Lamis Ahmad............................. Ahmad..................... 82 Individual.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs................... 89 Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
California Edison, collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
GE Appliances........................... GEA....................... 85 Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters.......... 87 Energy Organizations.
Consumer Federation of America, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
American Public Gas Association, Joint Gas Associations.... 86 Utility and Trade
American Gas Association. Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 88 Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\15\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the January 28, 2021, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this SNOPR. Any oral comments provided during the
webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are
summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products. (Docket NO. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005, which is maintained at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Basis for This Proposed Rule
In the December 2020 NOPD, the tentative determination that amended
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products would not be economically justified and would not result in a
significant conservation of energy hinged, in significant part, on
DOE's proposal to screen out all identified technology options that
would improve the performance of gas cooking tops to efficiencies above
the baseline efficiency level. 85 FR 80982, 81003-81004. DOE noted in
the December 2020 NOPD that the estimates for energy savings associated
with a specific technology option for gas cooking tops, optimized
burner and grate design, may vary depending on the test procedure, and
thus DOE screened out this technology options from further analysis of
gas cooking tops. Id. at 85 FR 81004. As discussed in section III.C of
this document, at the time of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE had withdrawn
its test procedure for conventional cooking tops. However, DOE
additionally stated in the December 2020 NOPD that it would reevaluate
the energy savings associated with this technology option if it
considered performance standards in a future rulemaking. Id.
On August 22, 2022, DOE published a final rule (``August 2022 TP
Final Rule'') establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking
tops, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method
for the Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking
Products.'' 87 FR 51492. As a result, in this SNOPR, DOE is
reevaluating the energy savings associated with the optimized burner
and grate design technology option for conventional gas cooking tops
and has tentatively found that amended energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional cooking products are economically justified
and would result in a significant conservation of energy.
As discussed in section III.C of this document, this SNOPR
specifically further differs from the September 2016 SNOPR in that the
performance standards evaluated for conventional cooking tops are based
on the new appendix I1 test procedure, rather than on the now-withdrawn
former appendix I.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the NOPR stage for an energy
conservation standard rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A
specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but
will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this SNOPR, DOE has opted
to instead

[[Page 6827]]

provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the February
2014 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided
stakeholders a 60-day comment period, after publishing the comment
period extension. Additionally, DOE provided a 30-day comment period
for the September 2016 SNOPR with an extension to 60 days, and a 75-day
comment period for the December 2020 NOPD. 81 FR 60784, 81 FR 67219, 85
FR 80982. DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and
approaches as used in the September 2016 SNOPR and December 2020 NOPD.
As such, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will
provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

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

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
GEA supported the comments submitted by AHAM and incorporated them
by reference. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 1).
AHAM stated that the 2017 statutory deadline to publish a final
rule regarding consumer conventional cooking product energy
conservation standards has passed, and that DOE should not hold this
rule open and should finalize a determination not to amend the
standard. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4). AHAM commented that it is
disingenuous of other commenters to simultaneously challenge DOE for
failing to timely meet an obligation while also urging it to further
delay meeting that same obligation. (Id.) AHAM added that, should DOE
believe energy conservation standards based on measured efficiency
could be justified once a reliable test procedure exists, DOE can
propose a rule at any time after the publication of the determination
not to amend the standard, although AHAM questioned whether such a
standard would be justified under EPCA. (Id.) AHAM further noted that
EPCA requires that DOE re-evaluate its determination not to amend the
standard within 3 years of the issuance of that determination. 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B). (Id.)
GEA commented that DOE's actions on this standard are long past
due. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2).
The CA IOUs urged DOE to consider the implications of the December
2020 NOPD on the Executive Order 13990 and the announcement that the
DOE would be re-examining the withdrawal of the cooking top test
procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 5)
In the most recent stage of this rulemaking, DOE published the
December 2020 NOPD in which it tentatively concluded that new and
amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products would not be economically justified and would not result in a
significant conservation of energy, in part because it was unable to
evaluate certain technology options for gas cooking tops in the absence
of a test procedure for these products. 85 FR 80982. The test procedure
established in the August 2022 TP Final Rule, discussed in more detail
in section III.C of this document, provides testing results upon which
these SNOPR analyses for conventional cooking tops were based. DOE
reevaluated its analyses as quickly as possible once the test procedure
was finalized. President Biden's Executive Order 13990, which addresses
the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases, are discussed in
section IV.L of this document.
The Joint Gas Associations agreed with the DOE's tentative
determination in the December 2020 NOPD that no new standards are
justified. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 86 at pp. 2-3). The Joint Gas
Associations further supported the December 2020 NOPD's tentative
determination that neither of the February 2020 Process Rule's
thresholds for significant energy savings are met for TSL 2 or TSL 1
for consumer conventional cooking products. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters expressed concern that DOE indicated it was in
the process of revising the Process Rule, yet the Department cited the
energy savings thresholds from the February 2020 Process Rule to
justify the proposed determination of no amended standards. (Joint
Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1). The Joint Commenters added that with
billions of consumer savings at risk, DOE should not move forward with
this determination until DOE completed the indicated revisions to the
Process Rule. (Id.) The Joint Commenters further commented that DOE
should eliminate the energy savings thresholds as part of the Process
Rule revision in order to ensure that critical energy and utility bill
savings are not lost. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2).
In evaluating the significance of the estimated energy savings for
the December 2020 NOPD, DOE applied a two-part numeric threshold test
that was then applicable under section 6(b) of appendix A to 10 CFR
part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition).\16\ Specifically, the
threshold required that an energy conservation standard result in a
0.30 quads reduction in site energy use over a 30-year analysis period
or a 10-percent reduction in site energy use over that same period. See
85 FR 8626, 8670 (Feb. 14, 2020). In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE stated
that the estimated site energy savings at the max-tech level evaluated
at that time was 0.57 quads, which exceeded the 0.3-quads threshold,
but expressed concern that this TSL might result in the unavailability
of certain product types for conventional ovens because there would be
significant uncertainty as to whether commercial-style manufacturers
would be able to test their products in the absence of a DOE test
procedure for conventional ovens. 85 FR 80982, 81053. (See section
III.C of this document for discussion of the repeal of the conventional
oven test procedure.) DOE then evaluated the next lower TSL than max-
tech and estimated that it would save an estimated 0.22 quads of site
energy over the evaluation period, which would represent a 4.9-percent
decrease in the site energy use of the evaluated products. Id. That
estimated site energy savings would not reach the 0.3 quad-threshold or
the 10-percent site energy saving threshold enumerated in section 6(b)
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (Jan. 1, 2021 edition).
Accordingly, DOE tentatively determined in the December 2020 NOPD that
new or amended energy conservation standards for consumer conventional
cooking products would not result in significant conservation of energy
and be economically justified. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ DOE established the numeric threshold test in section 6(b)
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C in a final rule published
on February 14, 2020. 85 FR 8626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 13, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register, a
final rule that amended appendix A. 86 FR 70892 (``December 2021 Final
Rule''). The December 2021 Final Rule, in part, removed the numeric
threshold in section 6(b) of appendix A for determining when the
significant energy savings criterion is met, reverting to DOE's prior
practice of making such determinations on a case-by-case basis. 86 FR
70892.
Adkins commented that many consumer cooking products are already

[[Page 6828]]

operating at near peak capabilities and added that introducing stronger
regulations on consumer cooking products would increase the cost of
these products for consumers, lowering consumption with little to no
positive environmental impact. (Adkins, No. 81 at p. 1)
Ahmad commented that DOE's tentative determination of no economic
justification for cooking products may still be valid because of a lack
of significant technological advancements since the September 2016
SNOPR. (Ahmad, No. 82 at p. 1)
AHAM stated that no significant changes have occurred to justify
new standards since the April 2009 Final Rule that determined that
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products were not justified. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
GEA stated that consumer conventional cooking products use little
energy compared to other DOE regulated products and therefore DOE's
limited resources are better served on products for whom greater energy
savings is feasible. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2) GEA supported DOE's proposed
determination not to amend standards. (Id.)
The Joint Gas Associations agreed with DOE's tentative
determination in the December 2020 NOPD that a potential amended
standard based on TSL 3 would result in a negative net present value, a
negative INPV range, a potential unavailability of certain product
types for conventional ovens, and a loss of certain functions that
provide utility to customers, and that a potential standard at TSL 3 is
not economically justified. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 86 at p. 3)
The Joint Gas Associations further stated that any potential positive
impacts from an amended standard at TSL 3 are not outweighed by these
estimated negative impacts. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters commented that, without the February 2020
Process Rule thresholds, adopting standards at TSL 2 from the December
2020 NOPD could provide full-fuel cycle savings of 0.6 quads and
consumer savings of up to $3.7 billion. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p.
2) The Joint Commenters added that adopting standards at the TSL 2 from
the December 2020 NOPD would provide full-fuel-cycle energy savings of
0.28 quads and NPV savings of up to $2 billion for electric smooth
element cooking tops with an incremental cost of only $3, and would
achieve full-fuel-cycle energy savings of 0.1 quads and NPV savings of
up to $730 million for self-cleaning freestanding conventional electric
ovens with an incremental cost of $1. (Id. referencing 85 FR 80982,
81049-81050).
NEEA commented that according to the 2015 RECS, while cooking
represents a small amount of overall home energy use (1.4 percent in
residential electricity use and 2.9 percent in residential gas use),
when combined with the potential individual unit savings for cooking
tops shown in the December 2020 NOPD and external testing, performance-
based standards for cooking tops could lead to significant national
energy savings. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 3) NEEA noted that DOE's testing
showed that conventional gas cooking tops with similar average burner
input rates can vary in annual energy use by as much as 27 percent, and
conventional oven efficiency for units with similar input rates varied
by 11 percent and 19 percent for gas and electric units, respectively.
(Id. referencing 85 FR 80982, 81008-81009) NEEA also noted that DOE
found potential energy savings on average of 24 percent for induction
electric cooking tops compared to a baseline smooth element electric
cooking top. NEEA commented that this is in line with recent testing
conducted by the Food Service Technology Center,\17\ which found a 23-
percent efficiency improvement. (Id. referencing 85 FR 80982, 81035)
NEEA recommended that DOE proceed with updated standards for cooking
tops and conventional ovens once the test procedure has been updated,
commenting that this would allow DOE to consider performance-based
standards for cooking tops and conventional ovens that harness energy
efficiency opportunities, which could not be fully achieved through the
prescriptive standards considered in the December 2020 NOPD (Id.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Frontier Energy. Residential Cooktop Performance and Energy
Comparison Study. July 2019. Page 11. Available at
<a href="http://www.buildingdecarb.org/uploads/3/0/7/3/30734489/induction_report.pdf">www.buildingdecarb.org/uploads/3/0/7/3/30734489/induction_report.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs commented that, given the recent shift in consumer
behavior, there is a high likelihood that a reanalysis of the TSL 2
defined in the December 2020 NOPD based on more recent cooking
frequency data would lead to site savings greater than 0.3 quads,
exceeding the February 2020 Process Rule's significant energy savings
threshold. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at pp. 3-4)
EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standards
prescribed by DOE for any type (or class) of covered product be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency (or
for certain products, water efficiency) which the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and economically justified. Upon the
finalization of a new test procedure for consumer conventional cooking
products, DOE reevaluated its analysis from the December 2020 NOPD,
including its tentative determination at that time to screen out the
technology option for improved burner and grate design. DOE is updating
its tentative conclusions in this SNOPR to reflect the use of optimized
burners and grates on gas cooking tops to achieve higher efficiencies.
See section IV.A.2 and section IV.B of this document, as well as
chapters 3 and 4 of the TSD for this SNOPR for additional information
on this technology option and screening analysis. DOE also updated its
information regarding the prevalence of baseline technologies in
conventional ovens on the market. See section IV.F.8 of this document
and chapter 7 of the TSD for this SNOPR. Pursuant to these updates and
others outlined in this SNOPR, DOE revised its analysis regarding the
technological feasibility and economic justification of new and amended
energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products and presents a summary of the results in section V of this
SNOPR.

B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
As discussed in section II.A of this document, 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(10) of EPCA covers kitchen ranges and ovens, or ``cooking
products.'' DOE's regulations define ``cooking products'' as consumer
products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. They
are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of
the following sources of heat: Gas, electricity, or microwave energy.
Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or
more surface units \18\ and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR
430.2. DOE is not considering energy

[[Page 6829]]

conservation standards for microwave ovens as part of this proposed
rulemaking.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The term surface unit refers to burners for gas cooking
tops and electric resistance heating elements or inductive heating
elements for electric cooking tops.
\19\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0023/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE defines a combined cooking product as a household cooking
appliance that combines a conventional cooking top and/or conventional
oven with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include
another cooking product (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I). In
this analysis, DOE is not treating combined cooking products as a
distinct product category and is not basing its product classes on such
a category. Instead, DOE is evaluating energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens separately.
Because combined cooking products consist, in part, of a cooking top
and/or oven, the cooking top and oven standards would continue to apply
to the individual components of the combined cooking product.
As part of the 2009 standards rulemaking for consumer conventional
cooking products, DOE did not consider energy conservation standards
for consumer conventional gas cooking products with higher burner input
rates, including products marketed as ``commercial-style'' or
``professional-style,'' due to a lack of available data for determining
efficiency characteristics of those products. DOE considered such
products to be gas cooking tops with burner input rates greater than
14,000 British thermal units per hour (``Btu/h'') and gas ovens with
burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr.
8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE also stated
that the DOE cooking products test procedures at that time may not
adequately measure performance of gas cooking tops and ovens with
higher burner input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64444-64445 (Nov. 15, 2007).
As part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively
planned to consider energy conservation standards for all consumer
conventional cooking products, including commercial-style gas cooking
products with higher burner input rates. In addition, DOE stated that
it may consider developing test procedures for these products and
determine whether separate product classes are warranted. 79 FR 8337,
8340 (Feb. 12, 2014).
As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE's new test
procedure for conventional cooking tops in appendix I1 measures the
energy use of commercial-style gas cooking tops with high burner input
rates. DOE also repealed the conventional oven test procedure in a
final rule published on December 16, 2016 (``December 2016 TP Final
Rule''). 81 FR 91418.
In the December 2020 NOPD, in the absence of Federal test
procedures to measure the energy use or energy efficiency of
conventional cooking tops and conventional ovens, DOE evaluated
prescriptive design requirements for the control system of conventional
electric smooth element cooking tops and conventional ovens, including
commercial-style ovens with higher burner input rates. 85 FR 80982,
80988. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE stated that it would maintain the
existing prescriptive design requirements for all conventional gas
cooking products, noting that the current definitions for
``conventional cooking top'' and ``conventional oven'' in 10 CFR 430.2
already cover commercial-style gas cooking products with higher burner
input rates, as these products are household cooking appliances with
surface units or compartments intended for the cooking or heating of
food by means of a gas flame. Id. In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE did
not propose a separate product class for gas cooking tops and ovens
with higher burner input rates that are marketed as ``commercial-
style'' and did not propose separate definitions for these products.
Id.
Adkins supported higher standards for industrial cooking equipment
and stated that the degree of energy saved by an individual consumer is
minimal when compared to that of an entire business or corporation.
(Adkins, No. 81 at p. 1)
Ahmad commented that microwave ovens should be the subject of
amended energy conservation standards due to widespread use in the U.S.
(Ahmad, No. 82 at p. 1)
The scope of this rulemaking is limited to cooking products. As
defined in 10 CFR 430.2, ``cooking products'' are 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. Industrial
cooking equipment and microwave ovens are not in the scope of this
proposed rule.
In this SNOPR, DOE is proposing to define a portable conventional
cooking top as a conventional cooking top designed to be moved from
place to place. Using this definition, DOE is proposing that the
proposed standards for conventional cooking tops would apply to
portable models according to their means of heating (gas, electric open
(coil) element, or electric smooth element).
DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for portable
conventional cooking top and DOE's proposal to include portable
conventional cooking tops in the existing product classes. DOE also
seeks data and information on its initial determination not to
differentiate conventional cooking tops on the basis of portability
when considering product classes for this SNOPR analysis.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking
products are prescriptive standards that prohibits constant burning
pilots for all gas cooking products (i.e., gas cooking products both
with or without an electrical supply cord) manufactured on and after
April 9, 2012. 74 FR 16040. (See 10 CFR 430.32(j)(2).)
DOE established test procedures for consumer conventional cooking
products in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10,
1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised its test procedures for
cooking products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy
use, and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976
(Oct. 3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A
reduction in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the
number of self-clean oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of
portions of International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'')
Standard 705-1988, ``Methods for measuring the performance of microwave
ovens for household and similar purposes,'' and Amendment 2-1993 for
the testing of microwave ovens. Id. The test procedures for consumer
conventional cooking products established provisions for determining
estimated annual operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the
ratio of cooking energy output to cooking energy input), and energy
factor (defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to
total annual energy input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. These
provisions

[[Page 6830]]

for consumer conventional cooking products were not used for compliance
with any energy conservation standards because the standards to date
have been design requirements; in addition, there is no EnergyGuide
\20\ labeling program for cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program,
see: <a href="http://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-use-energyguide-label-shop-home-appliances">consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-use-energyguide-label-shop-home-appliances</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (i.e., fan-only
mode) testing provisions, for consumer conventional cooking products,
satisfying the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby
mode and off mode power in its test procedures for residential
products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)). DOE
published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (``October 2012 TP Final
Rule''), adopting standby and off mode provisions. 77 FR 65942.
Prior to the June 2015 NOPR, DOE issued two notices requesting
comment on the test procedures for cooking products. On January 30,
2013, DOE published a NOPR (``January 2013 TP NOPR'') proposing
amendments to the cooking products test procedure in appendix I that
would allow for the testing of active mode energy consumption of
induction cooking tops; i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped with
induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the
cooking top. 78 FR 6232. DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking
tops by amending the definition of ``conventional cooking top'' to
include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to
require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with
induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid
aluminum test blocks specified at that time in the test procedure for
cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an
aluminum body and a stainless-steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234.
On December 3, 2014, DOE issued a second notice requesting comment
on the test procedures for cooking products (``December 2014 TP
SNOPR''). 79 FR 71894. In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE modified its
proposal from the January 2013 TP NOPR in response to comments from
interested parties to specify different test equipment that would allow
for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops, and
would include an additional test block size for electric surface units
with large diameters (both induction and electric resistance). Id. In
addition, DOE proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface
units, electric surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones,
and full-surface induction cooking tops. Id. In the December 2014 TP
SNOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to add a larger test block size to
test gas cooking top burners with higher input rates. Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for
measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing
oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input
rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of
conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894.
On July 2, 2015, DOE published a test procedure final rule (``July
2015 TP Final Rule'') adopting the test procedure amendments discussed
above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR 37954.
As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR for conventional ovens, DOE
received a significant number of comments raising issues with the
repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block
test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR
and in separate interviews conducted with consumer conventional cooking
product manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030,
33039-33040. A number of manufacturers that produce and sell products
in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test method and
harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2, ``Household electric
appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring performance'' \21\
(``IEC Standard 60350-2'') for measuring the energy consumption of
electric cooking tops. These manufacturers stated that the test methods
in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all electric cooking top
types, specify additional cookware diameters to account for the variety
of surface unit sizes on the market, and use test loads that represent
real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency advocates also recommended
that DOE require water-heating test methods to produce a measure of
cooking efficiency for conventional cooking tops that is more
representative of actual cooking performance than the hybrid test block
method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040. For these reasons, DOE decided to
defer its decision regarding adoption of energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops until a representative, repeatable and
reproducible test method for cooking tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030,
33040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Hob is the British English term for cooking top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE published an SNOPR on August 22, 2016 (``August 2016 TP
SNOPR'') that proposed amendments to the test procedures for
conventional cooking tops. 81 FR 57374. Given the feedback from
interested parties discussed above and based on the additional testing
and analysis conducted for the test procedure rulemaking, in the August
2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for testing conventional
cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, DOE proposed to amend
its test procedure to incorporate by reference the relevant sections of
European Standard EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household electric cooking
appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'' \22\ (``EN
60350-2:2013''), which provide a water-heating test method to measure
the energy consumption of electric cooking tops. The test method
specifies the quantity of water to be heated in a standardized test
vessel whose size is selected based on the diameter of the surface unit
under test. The test vessels specified in EN 60350-2:2013 are
compatible with all cooking top technologies and surface unit diameters
available on the U.S. market. 81 FR 57374, 57381-57384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ The test methods in EN 60350-2:2013 are based on the same
test methods in the draft version of IEC 60350-2 available at the
time of the December 2016 TP Final Rule. As noted in that final
rule, based on the few comments received during the development of
the draft, DOE expected that the IEC procedure, once finalized,
would retain the same basic test method as contained in EN 60350-
2:2013. 81 FR 91418, 91421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in EN 60530-
2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by
correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including
input rates that exceed 14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In
addition, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include
methods for both electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual
energy consumption (``AEC'') and integrated annual energy consumption
(``IAEC'') to account for the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR
57374, 57387-57388. In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal
the conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the
conventional oven test procedure may not accurately represent consumer
use as it favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not
capture cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal
mass of the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.

[[Page 6831]]

As discussed previously, for the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
evaluated its proposed energy conservation standards for conventional
cooking tops based on the cooking top test procedure proposed in the
August 2016 TP SNOPR. 81 FR 60784, 60797. For conventional ovens, due
to the uncertainties in analyzing a performance-based standard using
oven testing provisions that DOE proposed to remove from the test
procedure, as discussed previously, DOE proposed in the September 2016
SNOPR prescriptive design requirements for the control system of
conventional ovens. 81 FR 60784, 60794.
On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule repealing the test
procedures for conventional ovens, and adopting the test procedure
amendments for conventional cooking tops proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR, with the following modifications:
<bullet> Aligning the test methods for electric surface units with
flexible concentric cooking zones (also referred to as multi-ring
surface units) with the provisions in EN 60350-2:2013; \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ EN 60350-2:2013 requires testing of the largest measured
diameter of multi-ring surface units only, unless an additional test
vessel category is needed to meet the test vessel selection
requirements in EN 60350-2:2013. In that case, one of the smaller-
diameter settings of the multi-ring surface unit may be tested if it
fulfills the test vessel category requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Clarifying the simmering temperature requirements,
temperature sensor requirements, and surface unit diameter measurement;
and
<bullet> Maintaining the existing installation requirements in
appendix I. 81 FR 91418.
The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a petition from AHAM
requesting that DOE reconsider its December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its
petition, AHAM requested that DOE undertake a rulemaking to withdraw
the test procedure for conventional cooking tops, while maintaining the
repeal of the oven test procedure that was part of the December 2016 TP
Final Rule. In the interim, AHAM sought an immediate stay of the
effectiveness of the December 2016 TP Final Rule, including the
requirement that manufacturers use the final test procedure to make
energy-related claims. In its petition, AHAM claimed that its analyses
showed that the test procedure is not representative for gas cooking
tops and, for gas and electric cooking tops, has such a high level of
variation it will not produce accurate results for certification and
enforcement purposes and will not assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions based on energy efficiency. DOE published AHAM's petition on
April 25, 2018, and requested comments and information on whether DOE
should undertake a rulemaking to consider the proposal contained in the
petition. 80 FR 17944.
On August 18, 2020, DOE published a final rule (``August 2020 TP
Final Rule'') withdrawing the test procedure for conventional cooking
tops after evaluating new information and data produced by AHAM and
other interested parties that suggested that the test procedure yields
inconsistent results that are indicative of the test not being
representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use cycle.
85 FR 50757. Testing conducted by DOE and outside parties using the
test procedure yielded inconsistent results. 85 FR 50757, 50763. DOE
had not identified the cause of the inconsistencies and noted that its
data to date was limited. Id. DOE concluded, therefore, that the test
procedure was not representative of energy use or efficiency during an
average use cycle. Id. DOE also determined that it would be unduly
burdensome to leave the test procedure in place and require cooking top
tests to be conducted using that test method without further study to
resolve those inconsistencies. Id.
As discussed, DOE published the August 2022 TP Final Rule
establishing a test procedure for conventional cooking tops, at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method for the
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.'' 87
FR 51492. The test procedure adopted the latest version of the relevant
industry standard published by IEC, Standard 60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-
08), ``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for
measuring performance'' (``IEC 60350-2:2017''), for electric cooking
tops with modifications including adapting the test method to gas
cooking tops, normalizing the energy use of each test cycle to a
consistent final water temperature, and including a measurement of
standby mode and off mode energy use. Id.
Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must
include, where applicable, test procedures prescribed in accordance
with the test procedure provisions of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)). As
discussed previously, DOE repealed the conventional oven test procedure
and is evaluating new prescriptive design requirements for the control
system of conventional ovens, while proposing to maintain the existing
prescriptive design requirements for conventional gas ovens. As a
result, the prescriptive design requirements would not require
manufacturers to test using the DOE test procedure to certify
conventional ovens.
Furthermore, since DOE is proposing to adopt prescriptive design
requirements that would not require a test procedure for conventional
ovens, DOE tentatively concludes that no test procedures for
conventional ovens are needed at this time. If finalized, this
tentative determination would satisfy the EPCA requirement at 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A) that requires the Secretary to review test procedures for
all covered products, including conventional ovens, every 7 years and
either amend those test procedures or publish in the Federal Register
of a determination not to amend the test procedure. The last time the
conventional ovens test procedure was evaluated was as part of the
December 2016 Final Rule, which repealed the existing test procedure
for conventional ovens. Therefore, if DOE were to proceed, it would
need to finalize its determination by December 16, 2023.
AHAM stated that the absence of a test procedure to measure
efficiency for cooking tops and conventional ovens is sufficient
grounds upon which to justify a determination not to amend standards
beyond the existing design standards (AHAM, No. 84 at pp. 2-3). AHAM
added that EPCA does not allow DOE to prescribe amended or new
standards without a final test procedure in place (Id. referencing 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)).
EPCA's requirement that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if a test procedure has not been prescribed does not
apply to dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and kitchen
ranges and ovens, the subject of this rulemaking (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A)).
AHAM commented that it was working on a test procedure to measure
the efficiency of cooking tops and conventional ovens (AHAM, No. 84 at
p. 3). AHAM added that DOE and some efficiency advocates have been
included in the task force that is developing the test. (Id.) AHAM
stated that the goals of its cooking top and conventional oven test
procedures are to address the technical issues in the previous cooking
top and conventional oven test procedures, which ultimately resulted in
their withdrawal, and to develop new test procedures that are accurate,
repeatable, and reproducible. (Id.) AHAM suggested that DOE would be

[[Page 6832]]

able to adopt both procedures in their entirety in a future rulemaking.
(Id.)
In response to DOE's notification of the White House Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') that it would review its withdrawal of
the cooking top test procedure, AHAM urged DOE not to consume its
resources in considering to reinstate the withdrawn cooking top test
procedure and stated that DOE should continue to work with AHAM and
efficiency advocates to develop a new collaborative cooking top test
procedure which would provide certainty as DOE proceeds with a future
standards rulemaking process, shorten the time needed to finalize a
test method, and satisfy the goals of Executive Order 13990. (AHAM, No.
84 at p. 3)
GEA supported DOE's proposed determination not to amend standards
because there is no current test procedure for consumer conventional
cooking products. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2) GEA stated that the previously
withdrawn test procedures were not reliable or reproducible. (Id.) GEA
stated that it is working closely with the AHAM task force dedicated to
developing a reliable, repeatable, and reproducible test procedure for
consumer conventional cooking products. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE must establish test procedures
for cooking products and complete the revision of the Process Rule
prior to proceeding with a determination for cooking products
standards. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters
noted that performance-based standards have the potential to achieve
significantly greater savings than prescriptive requirements, and that
DOE should focus on establishing test procedures rather than use
repealed test procedures to evaluate potential standard levels. (Id.)
NEEA recommended that DOE conduct further testing as needed and
issue updated test procedures for both cooking tops and conventional
ovens, given the significant potential energy savings from performance
standards for both product categories. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 1-2) NEEA
recommended that DOE conduct additional testing to resolve the
discrepancies found during former testing and develop a revised test
procedure for conventional cooking tops as soon as possible. (NEEA, No.
88 at p. 2) NEEA stated that all concerns submitted in AHAM's petition
for the withdrawal of the cooking top test procedure (concern over the
lack of defined tolerance for staying ``as close as possible'' to 194
degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F'') in the test procedure, variability in
energy consumption during the simmer phase, and variability in
determining the turn down temperature and setting) can be addressed by
setting appropriate tolerances on these variables. (Id.) NEEA further
noted that the test method that was referenced in the 2016 test
procedure, EN 60350-2-2013, has been updated since the December 2016 TP
Final Rule and the revised test method may serve as an additional
resource in developing an updated test procedure that is
representative, repeatable, and reproducible. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 2-3)
NEEA recommended that DOE consider ASTM Standard F1521 in updating the
test procedure, which has been used by the Food Service Technology
Center to conduct testing on conventional cooking top performance and
efficiency and is currently being updated for ASTM Committee F26 on
Food Service Equipment. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs believe that the withdrawn cooking top test procedure
is adequately repeatable and that it should be re-examined. (CA IOUs,
No. 89 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated they believe the discrepancies
presented in the AHAM Withdrawal Petition are, in part, due to specific
test method employed during AHAM's testing. (Id.) The CA IOUs continued
that because the test data which was used to withdraw the test
procedure did not use the ambient condition \24\ specifications of the
test procedure in question, DOE should pursue robust round robin
testing to uncover the true reproducibility values associated with the
test procedure. (Id.) In the August 2020 TP Final Rule, DOE cited
authority to withdraw the cooking products test procedure under 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), noting that ``DOE has the authority to withdraw a
test procedure that is not representative of an average use cycle or
period of use and is unduly burdensome to conduct.'' (Id.) In response,
the CA IOUs commented that they believe the authority to act on an
unrepresentative test procedure lies in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2), which
only grants DOE the authority to prescribe or amend a test procedure,
not to withdraw a test procedure in its entirety. (Id.) The CA IOUs
requested that DOE consider reinstating the test procedure and using
the performance-based analysis therein. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ AHAM's petition noted that some of the test labs
participating in the round robin testing were unable to meet the
ambient conditions of ``<plus-minus>2 [deg]F'' specified in the DOE
test procedure, and therefore ran tests at <plus-minus>5 [deg]F in
their laboratories. (EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004-0003) DOE notes that the
test procedure finalized in the December 2016 TP Final Rule required
ambient conditions of <plus-minus>2 [deg]Celsius (``[deg]C''), which
is equivalent to <plus-minus>5 [deg]F, the specification used by
AHAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE acknowledges that a test procedure is necessary to evaluate the
performance of, and to adopt performance standards for, cooking tops.
As discussed previously, since the December 2020 NOPD, DOE has
published a test procedure final rule establishing test procedures for
cooking tops. In this SNOPR, DOE has analyzed performance-based
standards for cooking tops, measured according to new appendix I1.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix
A.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B of
this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for
consumer conventional cooking products, particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the
standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the
screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in

[[Page 6833]]

energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
improvements in energy efficiency for consumer conventional cooking
products, using the design parameters for the most efficient products
available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels
that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C
of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (i.e., TSL), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to consumer conventional cooking
products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of
compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056).\25\ The savings are
measured over the entire lifetime of consumer conventional cooking
products purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the
energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy
consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case.
The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption
that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the
absence of new or amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this SNOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or
new standards for consumer conventional cooking products. The NIA
spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to
generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the
primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The
FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards.\26\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation
of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered
products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see
section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\27\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70924).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other
factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)). The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific

[[Page 6834]]

inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed
rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of
Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this issue. DOE will
publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the
final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy
savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and
use, including in-home emissions reductions experienced by consumers,
and their families. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value
of climate and health benefits from certain emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of
this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to consumer conventional cooking products.
Separate paragraphs address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer

[[Page 6835]]

costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer impacts of
potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the
DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document</a>. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest
version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual
Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for the
United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of consumer conventional
cooking products. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are
summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the TSD for this
SNOPR for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e.,
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related
features that justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies
a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to
the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are
appropriate. (Id.)
a. Conventional Cooking Tops
During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for
cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional
cooking tops based on energy source (i.e., gas or electric). These
distinctions initially yielded two conventional cooking top classes:
(1) gas cooking tops; and (2) electric cooking tops. For electric
cooking tops, DOE determined that the ease of cleaning smooth elements
provides enhanced consumer utility over coil elements. Because smooth
elements can use more energy than coil elements, DOE defined two
separate product classes for electric cooking tops. DOE defined the
following product classes for consumer conventional cooking tops in the
April 2009 Final Rule TSD (``2009 TSD''): \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ The TSD from the previous residential cooking products
standards rulemaking is available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2006-STD-0127/document">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2006-STD-0127/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Electric cooking tops--low or high wattage open (coil)
elements;
<bullet> Electric cooking tops--smooth elements; and
<bullet> Gas cooking tops--conventional burners.
Induction Heating
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to maintain the product
classes for conventional cooking tops from the previous standards
rulemaking, as discussed. 85 FR 80982, 80995. DOE also proposed to
consider induction heating as a technology option for electric smooth
element cooking tops rather than as a separate product class. Id. DOE
noted that induction heating provides the same basic function of
cooking or heating food as heating by gas flame or electric resistance,
and that the installation options available to consumers are also the
same for both cooking products with induction and with electric
resistance heating. Id. In addition, in considering whether there are
any performance-related features that justify a higher energy use
standard to establish a separate product class, DOE noted in the
September 2016 SNOPR that the utility of speed of cooking, ease of
cleaning, and requirements for specific cookware for induction cooking
tops do not appear to be uniquely associated with higher energy use
compared to other electric smooth element cooking tops with electric
resistance heating elements. 81 FR 60784, 60801.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding induction technologies
in response to the December 2020 NOPD.
In addition to the reasons presented in the December 2020 NOPD and
discussed previously, DOE recognizes that induction cooking tops are
only compatible with ferromagnetic cooking vessels. However, DOE does
not identify any consumer utility unique to any specific type of
cookware that would warrant establishing separate product classes. As
discussed in chapter 8 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE considered the
cost of replacing cookware as part of the LCC analysis. DOE also
conducted standby testing on full-surface induction cooking tops. Based
on DOE's testing, the sensors required to detect the presence of a pot
placed on the cooking surface do not remain active while the product is
in standby mode. In addition, DOE notes that the standby power required
for the tested model (0.25 watts (``W'')) was below the average standby
power for other electric cooking tops in DOE's test sample (2.25 W).
For these reasons, DOE is not considering a separate product class for
induction cooking products.
Commercial-Style Cooking Tops
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas cooking tops available on
the market, DOE determined for December 2020 NOPD that products
marketed as commercial-style cannot be distinguished from standard
residential-style products based on performance characteristics or
consumer utility. 85 FR 80982, 80995. While conventional gas cooking
tops marketed as commercial-style have more than one burner rated above
14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates, approximately 50 percent of cooking
top models marketed as residential-style also have one or more burners
rated above 14,000 Btu/h and cast-iron grates. Id.
As part of the December 2020 NOPD, DOE considered whether separate
product classes for commercial-style gas cooking tops with higher
burner input rates are warranted by comparing the test energy
consumption of individual surface units in a sample of cooking tops
tested by DOE. Id. For the September 2016 SNOPR analysis, DOE conducted
testing of gas surface units in a sample of twelve gas cooking tops,
which included six products marketed as commercial-style, according to
the test procedure established in the December 2016 TP Final Rule and
determined that there was no statistically significant correlation
between burner input rate and the ratio of surface unit energy
consumption to

[[Page 6836]]

test load mass \29\ for cooking tops marketed as either residential-
style or commercial-style. 81 FR 60783, 60801-60802. DOE noted that its
testing showed that this efficiency ratio for gas cooking tops is more
closely related to burner and grate design rather than input rate. Id.
at 81 FR 60802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Because the mass of the test load depends on the input rate
of the burner, the test energy consumption must be normalized for
comparison. The higher the ratio of test energy consumption to test
load mass, the less efficient the surface unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE recognized in the December 2020 NOPD that the presence of
certain features, such as heavy cast-iron grates and multiple high-
input rate burners (``HIR burners''), may help consumers perceive a
difference between commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking
top performance. 85 FR 80982, 80996. However, DOE stated that it was
not aware of clearly defined and consistent design differences and
corresponding utility provided by commercial-style gas cooking tops as
compared to residential-style gas cooking tops. Id. Although DOE's
testing indicated there is a difference in energy consumption between
residential-style and commercial-style gas cooking tops, this
difference could not be correlated to any specific utility provided to
consumers. Id. Moreover, DOE stated that it is not aware of an industry
test standard that evaluates cooking performance and that would
quantify the utility provided by these products. Id. While DOE stated
in the December 2020 NOPD that it recognizes the presence of certain
commercial-style features described by manufacturers may allow
consumers to cook with a wide variety of cooking methods, manufacturers
have not provided consumer usage data demonstrating that consumers of
commercial-style cooking tops and residential-style cooking tops employ
significantly different cooking methods during a typical cooking cycle.
Id. Moreover, DOE also stated that manufacturers have not provided
evidence that consumers of commercial-style cooking tops would use more
burners on a cooking top during a single cooking cycle than consumers
of residential-style cooking tops. Id. DOE noted that there are many
residential-style cooking tops with one to two HIR burners and
continuous cast-iron grates that provide consumers with the ability to
sear food at high temperatures and simmer at low temperatures. Id. For
these reasons, DOE did not propose in the December 2020 NOPD to
establish a separate product class for gas cooking tops marketed as
commercial-style or conventional gas cooking tops with higher burner
input rates. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding commercial-style gas
cooking tops in response to the December 2020 NOPD.
For this SNOPR analysis, DOE further considered whether separate
product classes for commercial-style cooking tops are warranted by
comparing the test energy consumption of burners in a sample of cooking
tops tested by DOE according to new appendix I1. DOE measured energy
consumption of gas burners in a sample of 24 gas cooking tops, which
included 11 products marketed as commercial-style. The number of
burners per cooking top ranged from four to six.
DOE's testing, as presented in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR,
showed that energy consumption for gas cooking tops continues to be
more closely related to burner and grate design rather than input rate,
as it was in the September 2016 SNOPR analysis.
Based on both review of the market and comments from manufacturers,
DOE recognizes that the presence of certain features, such as heavy
cast-iron grates and multiple HIR burners, may help consumers perceive
a difference between commercial-style and residential-style gas cooking
top performance. However, DOE continues to not be aware of clearly
defined, consistent design differences and corresponding utility
provided by commercial-style gas cooking tops as compared to
residential-style gas cooking tops. Although DOE's testing indicates
there is a difference in energy consumption between residential-style
and commercial-style gas cooking tops, this difference could not be
correlated to any specific utility provided to consumers. In addition,
there are many residential-style cooking tops with one to two HIR
burners and continuous cast-iron grates that provide consumers with the
ability to sear food at high temperatures and simmer at low
temperatures. For these reasons, DOE is not evaluating a separate
product class for commercial-style gas cooking tops.
However, as discussed in sections IV.B.1.b and IV.C.1.a of this
document, DOE conducted its engineering analysis consistent with
products currently available on the market and only evaluated
efficiency levels for gas cooking tops that maintain the features
available in conventional cooking tops marketed as commercial-style
(e.g., at least one HIR burners, continuous cast-iron gates, etc.) that
may be used to differentiate these products in the marketplace.
Downdraft Cooking Tops
DOE is aware of conventional cooking tops, including the cooking
top portion of conventional ranges, which incorporate venting systems
which draw air, combustion products, steam, smoke, grease, odors, and
other cooking emissions across the surface of the cooking top and
through a vent ducted to the outdoors (``downdraft venting systems'').
The fan in downdraft venting systems may be activated automatically any
time the cooking top is being operated, through a control algorithm
that determines when the fan should be activated, or by means of
consumer selection. Because indoor air quality (``IAQ'') related to
cooking emissions is the subject of increasing attention and
concern,\30\ and because venting systems designed to specifically
exhaust the emissions from conventional cooking products have been
shown to significantly improve IAQ in homes,\31\ building codes in
certain local jurisdictions mandate the use of venting systems for
conventional cooking products.\32\ Although these venting systems may
be external to and separate from the conventional cooking product
(i.e., a vent hood over a conventional cooking top or a separate
downdraft venting unit built into a countertop), venting may also be
accomplished by means of a downdraft venting system incorporated
integrally in a conventional cooking top. According to DOE's review of
products on the market and discussions with manufacturers, the
prevalence of conventional cooking tops with integral downdraft venting
systems is increasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See, for example, the discussion and recommendations
addressing ``Indoor Air Pollution from Cooking'' by the California
Air Resources Board, available at: <a href="http://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/indoor-air-pollution-cooking">ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/indoor-air-pollution-cooking</a>.
\31\ Militello-Hourigan, R.E. and Miller, S.L., ``The impacts of
cooking and an assessment of indoor air quality in Colorado passive
and tightly constructed homes,'' Building and Environment, October
15, 2018. Vol. 144, pp. 573-582. Research indicated that fine
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) concentrations from cooking
activity in homes could be reduced by at least 75 percent through
the use of a directly exhausting conventional range hood.
\32\ See, for example, Section 15.16.020 ``Domestic Range Hoods
and Vents'' of the San Clemente, California, Mechanical Code, which
requires that ``[k]itchen range hoods shall be installed for cooking
facilities with an approved forced-draft system of ventilation
vented to the outside of the building.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy consumption of an integral downdraft venting system,
including the fan and, in some cases, a motor to move the inlet duct
into position during operation, increases the total annual energy
consumption of a conventional cooking top. At this time, DOE does not
have information

[[Page 6837]]

regarding the operating patterns or consumer usage of downdraft venting
systems in conventional cooking tops that would allow it to
characterize representative energy use. Therefore, recognizing the
importance of IAQ issues and rapidly evolving market demands, and so as
to not impede innovation in this area, DOE has not evaluated the energy
consumption of downdraft venting systems nor is proposing to establish
separate product classes for conventional cooking tops with downdraft
venting systems in this SNOPR. DOE will continue to collect information
on such cooking tops and may consider the impacts in a future
rulemaking.
Alternatively, DOE could consider specifying an adder to the
maximum allowable IAEC value in the energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking tops with a downdraft venting system, which would
account for the energy consumption of the fan and any motor operation
during active mode and any standby mode or off mode power consumption
specifically associated with the downdraft venting system.
DOE seeks comment on the impacts of downdraft venting systems on
energy consumption and associated data about such impacts. DOE further
requests comment on its proposal to not include the energy consumption
of any downdraft venting system in the energy conservation standards
for conventional cooking tops.
Single-Zone Conventional Cooking Tops
DOE notes that some conventional cooking tops are distributed in
commerce with only a single cooking zone with a relatively high input
power for electric cooking tops or high burner input rate for gas
cooking tops. Single-cooking zone cooking tops do not provide the
ability for consumers to cook multiple food loads at the same time and,
particularly for gas cooking tops, may not operate over the full range
of input rates associated with all typical cooking processes for which
a conventional cooking top is used (e.g., boiling, saut[eacute]ing,
simmering, reheating) or accommodate the complete range of typical
cookware sizes. To achieve this full functionality, conventional
cooking tops with single cooking zones are typically used in
conjunction with one or more additional conventional cooking tops to
provide the consumer with the choice of the number and type of cooking
zones to use. Indeed, DOE observes that manufacturers of single-zone
cooking tops that are not portable conventional cooking tops also
typically manufacture and market comparable dual-zone cooking tops with
similar construction and design features, and consumers may choose to
install non-portable single-zone cooking units in combination with one
or more of such comparable dual-zone units to achieve full cooking
functionality. As a result, DOE expects that evaluating the IAEC of a
single-zone non-portable cooking top by itself would not be
representative of the average use of the product, and therefore
proposes that a more representative value of IAEC would be based on a
tested configuration of the typical combination of a single-zone
cooking top paired with one or more additional cooking tops, such that
the combination of conventional cooking tops in aggregate provides
complete functionality to the consumer.
Based on DOE's review of commercially available products, single-
zone and dual-zone non-portable cooking tops typically range in width
from 12 inches to 15 inches; DOE therefore proposes that the most
representative pairing for the tested configuration of a single-zone
cooking top would be the combination of one single-zone cooking top and
one comparable dual-zone cooking top, because the overall width of the
combination would not exceed the width of typical conventional cooking
tops with four to six cooking zones (24 inches to 36 inches) and
because this is the minimum number of such cooking tops that would
ensure complete functionality as previously described. Based on its
expectation that consumers will select, to the extent possible,
matching products for this combination, DOE proposes to define the
tested configuration of a single-zone non-portable cooking top as the
single-zone unit along with the same manufacturer's dual-zone non-
portable cooking top unit within the same product class and with
similar design characteristics (e.g., construction materials, user
interface), and use the same heating technology (i.e., gas flame,
electric resistive heating, or electric inductive heating) and energy
source (e.g., voltage, gas type). DOE expects that these products
comprising the test configuration typically would be marketed as being
within the same ``product line'' by manufacturers. In instances where
the manufacturer's product line contains more than one dual-zone non-
portable cooking top unit, DOE proposes that the dual-zone unit with
the least energy consumption, as measured using appendix I1, be
selected for the tested configuration, which along with the single-zone
counterpart, would span the full range of expected per-cooking zone
energy efficiency performance.
In the approach DOE is proposing, the representative IAEC of the
single-zone non-portable cooking top would factor in the performance of
the two additional cooking zones included in the dual-zone cooking top
that is part of the tested configuration. That is, the IAEC would be
based on the average active mode performance of the three cooking zones
comprising the tested configuration. Because the single-zone non-
portable cooking top contains one of the three burners, while the
comparable dual-zone cooking top contains two, DOE additionally
proposes that the IAEC of the single-zone non-portable cooking top unit
under consideration be calculated as the weighted average of the
measured IAEC of the single-zone cooking top and the IAEC dual-zone
cooking top in the tested configuration, using the number of cooking
zones as the basis for the weighting factors; i.e., the single-zone
IAEC would have a weighting of \1/3\ and the dual-zone IAEC would have
a weighting of \2/3\. Recognizing that the dual-zone cooking top in the
tested configuration would already be separately tested to determine
its IAEC value for certification purposes, to minimize testing burden
associated with this approach, DOE is proposing that the represented
IAEC value of the dual-zone cooking top (determined separately) would
be used in the calculation of the single-zone cooking top's represented
IAEC value (i.e., DOE is not requiring the dual-zone cooking top to be
tested again for the purpose of determining the represented IAEC value
of the single-zone cooking top). DOE expects that this approach will
produce results that are most representative for the tested
configuration. Further, DOE proposes that if there is no dual-zone non-
portable cooking top within the same product class and with similar
construction and design features as the single-zone non-portable
cooking top being tested, then consumers are likely to purchase and
install the single-zone cooking top for use on its own; in that case,
the most representative IAEC of the single-zone cooking top is the IAEC
of that product as measured according to appendix I1.
DOE requests comment on its proposed tested configuration and
determination of representative IAEC for single-zone non-portable
cooking tops.
DOE additionally proposes that a cooking top basic model is an
individual cooking top model and does not include any combinations of
cooking top models that may be installed together. Accordingly, as part
of DOE's proposal, each individual cooking top model that may be
installed

[[Page 6838]]

in combination must be rated as a separate basic model, and any
combination of such cooking top models that are typically installed in
combination does not itself need to have a separate representation as
its own basic model. In other words, DOE does not expect combinations
to be separately represented or certified to the Department as their
own basic models. This proposal is consistent with the current
definition of a basic model at 10 CFR 430.2, which specifies that basic
model includes all units of a given type of covered product (or class
thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer; having the same primary
energy source; and, which have essentially identical electrical,
physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect
energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water
efficiency. Therefore, DOE believes this clarification is helpful to
provide specific context for cooking tops, but DOE is not proposing
specific amendments to the basic model definition in this rule.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to not define ``basic model''
with respect to cooking products or cooking tops, and on possible
definitions for ``basic model'' with respect to cooking products or
cooking tops that could be used if DOE were to determine such a
definition is necessary.
b. Conventional Ovens
During the first energy conservation standards rulemaking for
cooking products, DOE evaluated product classes for conventional ovens
based on energy source (i.e., gas or electric). These distinctions
initially yielded two conventional oven product classes: (1) gas ovens;
and (2) electric ovens. DOE more recently determined that the type of
oven-cleaning system is a utility feature that affects performance. DOE
found that standard ovens and ovens using a catalytic continuous-
cleaning process use roughly the same amount of energy. On the other
hand, self-clean ovens use a pyrolytic process that provides enhanced
consumer utility with lower overall energy consumption as compared to
either standard or catalytically lined ovens. Therefore, in the April
2009 Final Rule analysis described in the 2009 TSD, DOE defined the
following product classes for conventional ovens:
<bullet> Electric ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic
line;
<bullet> Electric ovens--self-clean oven;
<bullet> Gas ovens--standard oven with or without a catalytic line;
and
<bullet> Gas ovens--self-clean oven.
Self-Cleaning Technology
Based on DOE's review of conventional gas ovens available on the
U.S. market, and on manufacturer interviews and testing conducted as
part of the engineering analysis, DOE noted in the June 2015 NOPR that
the self-cleaning function of a self-clean oven may employ methods
other than a high-temperature pyrolytic cycle to perform the cleaning
action.\33\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. DOE clarified that a conventional self-
clean electric or gas oven is an oven that has a user-selectable mode
separate from the normal baking mode, not intended to heat or cook
food, which is dedicated to cleaning and removing cooking deposits from
the oven cavity walls. Id. As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
stated that it is not aware of any differences in consumer behavior in
terms of the frequency of use of the self-clean function that would be
predicated on the type of self-cleaning technology rather than on
cleaning habits or cooking usage patterns that are not dependent on the
type of technology. 81 FR 60784, 60804. As a result, DOE did not
consider establishing separate product classes based on the type of
self-cleaning technology in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ DOE noted that it is aware of a type of self-cleaning oven
that uses a proprietary oven coating and water to perform a self-
clean cycle with a shorter duration and at a significantly lower
temperature setting. The self-cleaning cycle for these ovens, unlike
catalytically-lined standard ovens that provide continuous cleaning
during normal baking, still have a separate self-cleaning mode that
is user-selectable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the reasons discussed previously, DOE is not considering
separate product classes based on the type of self-cleaning technology.
DOE welcomes data on the consumer usage patterns of pyrolytic
versus non-pyrolytic self-cleaning functions in conventional ovens, and
requests comment on its preliminary determination that self-cleaning
technologies do not warrant separate product class considerations.
Commercial-Style Ovens
With regard to gas oven burner input rates, DOE noted in the June
2015 NOPR that based on its review of the consumer conventional gas
ovens available on the market, residential-style gas ovens typically
have an input rate of 16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h, whereas residential gas
ovens marketed as commercial-style typically have burner input rates
ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.\34\ 80 FR 33030, 33043. Additional
review of both the residential-style and commercial-style gas oven
cavities indicated that there is significant overlap in oven cavity
volume between the two oven types. Id. Standard residential-style gas
oven cavity volumes range from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet (``ft\3\'') and
gas ovens marketed as commercial-style have cavity volumes ranging from
3.0 to 6.0 ft\3\. Id. Sixty percent of the commercial-style models
surveyed had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 ft\3\, while fifty
percent of the standard models had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 5.0
ft\3\. Id. The primary differentiating factor between the two oven
types was burner input rate, which is greater than 22,500 Btu/h for
commercial-style gas ovens. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, while marketed as
commercial- or professional-style and having multiple surface units
with high input rates, did not have a gas oven with a burner input
rate above 22,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE conducted testing for the June 2015 NOPR using the version of
the test procedure later adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule to
determine whether commercial-style gas ovens with higher burner input
rates warrant establishing a separate product class. DOE evaluated the
cooking efficiency of eight conventional gas ovens, including five
ovens with burners rated at 18,000 Btu/h or less and the remaining
three with burner input rates ranging from 27,000 Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/
h. Id. DOE's testing showed that the measured cooking efficiencies for
ovens with burner input rates above 22,500 Btu/h were lower than for
ovens with ratings below 22,500 Btu/h, even after normalizing cooking
efficiency to a fixed cavity volume. Id. at 80 FR 33044. DOE also noted
that the conventional gas ovens with higher burner input rates in its
test sample were marketed as commercial-style and had greater total
thermal mass, including heavier racks and thicker cavity walls, even
after normalizing for cavity volume. Id. DOE's testing of a 30,000 Btu/
h oven suggested that much of the energy input to commercial-style
ovens with higher burner input rates goes to heating the added mass of
the cavity, rather than the test load, resulting in relatively lower
measured efficiency when measured according to the test procedure
adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule. Id. DOE also investigated the
time it took each oven in the test sample to heat the test load to a
final test temperature of 234 [deg]F above its initial temperature, as
specified in the DOE test procedure in appendix I at the time of the
testing. Id. at 80 FR 33045. DOE's testing showed that gas ovens with
burner input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h do not heat the test load
significantly faster than the

[[Page 6839]]

ovens with lower burner input rates, and two out of the three units
with the higher burner input rates took longer than the average time to
heat the test load. Id. Therefore, DOE concluded in the June 2015 NOPR
that there is no unique utility associated with faster cook times that
is provided by gas ovens with burner input rates greater than 22,500
Btu/h. Id.
Based on DOE's testing, reverse engineering, and additional
discussions with manufacturers, DOE posited in the June 2015 NOPR that
the major differentiation between conventional gas ovens with lower
burner input rates and those with higher input rates, including those
marketed as commercial-style, was design and construction related to
aesthetics rather than improved cooking performance. Id. Further, DOE
did not identify any unique utility conferred by commercial-style gas
ovens. For the reasons discussed above, DOE did not propose in the June
2015 NOPR to establish a separate product class for conventional gas
ovens with higher burner input rates. Id.
As part of the September 2016 SNOPR, to further address whether
commercial-style ovens provide a unique utility that would warrant
establishing a separate product class, DOE conducted additional
interviews with manufacturers of commercial-style cooking products and
reviewed additional commercial-style test data. 81 FR 60783, 60805-
60806. While these data demonstrated a difference in energy consumption
between residential-style and commercial-style ovens when measured
according to the test procedure adopted in the July 2015 TP Final Rule,
this difference could not be correlated to any specific utility
provided to consumers. Id. at 60806. Moreover, DOE stated that it is
not aware of an industry test standard that evaluates cooking
performance and that would quantify the utility provided by these
products. Id. DOE also noted that all conventional ovens, regardless of
whether or not the product is marketed as commercial-style, must meet
the same safety standards for the construction of the oven. Id.
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'') Z21.1 ``Household
Cooking Gas Appliances'' (``ANSI Z21.1''), Section 1.21.1, requires
that the oven structure, and specifically the baking racks, have
sufficient strength to sustain a load of up to 25 pounds depending on
the width of the rack. A similar standard (Underwriters Laboratories
(``UL'') 858 ``Household Electric Ranges'' (``UL 858'')) exists for
electric ovens.
DOE also observed as part of the September 2016 SNOPR that many of
the design features identified by manufacturers as unique to
commercial-style ovens and that may impact the energy consumption, such
as extension racks, convection fans, cooling fans, and hidden bake
elements, are also found in residential-style products. 81 FR 60783,
60806. DOE noted that the presence of these features, along with
thicker oven cavity walls and higher burner input rates, may help
consumers perceive a difference between commercial-style and
residential-style ovens. Id. However, DOE stated in the September 2016
SNOPR that it was not aware of a clearly defined and consistent design
difference and corresponding utility provided by commercial-style ovens
as compared to residential-style ovens. Id. For these reasons, DOE did
not propose in the September 2016 SNOPR, or in the December 2020 NOPD
to establish a separate product class for commercial-style ovens. Id.
at 85 FR 80982, 80998.
DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD
regarding commercial-style ovens. Based on DOE's analysis discussed
previously, DOE is not evaluating a separate product class for
commercial-style ovens in this SNOPR.
Installation Configuration
As discussed in section III.C of this document, in the October 2012
TP Final Rule, DOE amended appendix I to include methods for measuring
fan-only mode.\35\ Based on DOE's testing of freestanding, built-in,
and slide-in conventional gas and electric ovens, DOE observed that all
of the built-in and slide-in ovens tested consumed energy in fan-only
mode, whereas freestanding ovens did not. The energy consumption in
fan-only mode for built-in and slide-in ovens ranged from approximately
1.3 to 37.6 watt-hours (``Wh'') per cycle, which corresponds to 0.25 to
7.6 kWh/year. Based on DOE's reverse engineering analyses, DOE noted
that built-in and slide-in products incorporate an additional exhaust
fan and vent assembly that is not present in freestanding products. The
additional energy required to exhaust air from the oven cavity is
necessary for slide-in and built-in installation configurations to meet
safety-related temperature requirements because the oven is enclosed in
cabinetry. For these reasons, DOE proposed in the June 2015 NOPR,
September 2016 SNOPR, and December 2020 NOPD to include separate
product classes for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens. 80 FR
33030, 33045; 81 FR 60784, 60806; 85 FR 80982, 80998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Fan-only mode is an active mode that is not user-selectable
in which a fan circulates air internally or externally to the
cooking product for a finite period of time after the end of the
heating function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE did not receive comment on its proposal in the December 2020
NOPD to include separate product classes for built-in/slide-in ovens.
For the reasons discussed above, DOE analyzed separate product classes
for freestanding and built-in/slide-in ovens for this SNOPR.
c. Evaluated Product Classes
In summary, DOE analyzed the product classes listed in Table IV.1
for this SNOPR.

Table IV.1--Product Classes for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product
class Product type Sub-category Installation type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Electric cooking Open (coil)
top. elements.
2 Smooth elements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Gas cooking top.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Electric oven... Standard with or Freestanding.
without a
catalytic line.
5 Built-in/Slide-in.
6 Self-clean...... Freestanding.
7 Built-in/Slide-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Gas oven........ Standard with or Freestanding.
without a
catalytic line.
9 Built-in/Slide-in.

[[Page 6840]]

10 Self-clean...... Freestanding.
11 Built-in/Slide-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on the product classes evaluated in this SNOPR.
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of conventional cooking tops and of conventional ovens.
Initially, these technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are
technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR includes
the detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified
for consumer conventional cooking products.
AHAM stated that the available technology options have not changed
since the April 2009 Final Rule. (AHAM, No. 84 at p. 4)
GEA stated there have been no technology improvements impacting
energy efficiency and no meaningful energy savings opportunity in
consumer conventional cooking products since the last standards rule
and therefore there is no justification for changing the current
standards. (GEA, No. 85 at p. 2)
As discussed in chapter 3 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE has
performed market research and evaluated available consumer conventional
cooking products to assess existing technology options. Although DOE
has found that there are no specific new technology options that impact
energy efficiency available since the April 2009 Final Rule,
manufacturers are innovating on aspects of cooking performance that do
not relate to efficiency.
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
In response to the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE received comments from
AHAM opposing improved contact conductance as a technology option for
electric open (coil) element cooking tops. AHAM commented that the test
procedure specifies narrow tolerances on the flatness of the test
vessel, which AHAM felt were appropriate to reduce variability in test
results. AHAM stated that if a consumer does not use pots with
comparable flatness, any reduction in energy consumption due to greater
flatness of the heating element that would be measured using the test
procedure will not be realized in the field. Based on its test data,
AHAM asserted that consumers are using warped pans and that improving
the flatness of the heating element will not achieve improved contact
conductance. AHAM stated, therefore, that the energy savings associated
with the improved contact conductance technology option measured under
the test procedure is not representative of what consumer will
experience in the field and, as a result, this should not be considered
as a technology option. (AHAM, No. 64 at pp. 7-10)
DOE agreed that, based on the test data provided by AHAM, improving
the flatness of the electric coil heating element may not result in
energy savings due to the warping of pots and pans used by consumers.
As a result, DOE did not consider improved contact conductance as a
technology option for electric open (coil) element cooking tops for the
December 2020 NOPD. 85 FR 80982, 80999.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional electric cooking tops listed in Table IV.2.
Id. at 85 FR 80999-81000.

Table IV.2--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional
Electric Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
1. None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
1. Halogen elements.
2. Induction elements.
3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the December 2020 NOPD, the CA IOUs requested that
DOE re-examine its reasoning for no longer considering improved
electric coils as a technology option in electric open (coil) element
cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 5) The CA IOUs acknowledged that
pan warping over time is likely to occur, however the CA IOUs do not
believe this should preclude DOE from exploring improved electric coils
as an energy saving option. (Id.) The CA IOUs also expressed doubt that
energy savings from improving contact conductance is non-existent due
to pan warping, stating that AHAM's own data confirms that pan warping
may, in some cases, actually lessen the time it takes for a pot of
water to reach 200 [deg]F on an electric open (coil) element cooking
top. (Id. citing AHAM, No. 64 at p. 9)
DOE agrees that AHAM's data show that pan warping may, in some
cases, lessen the time it takes for a pot of water to reach 200 [deg]F
on an electric open (coil) element cooking top; however, AHAM's data
also demonstrate that in other cases, pan warpage may increase such
heating time. Given the inconsistent relationship between pan warpage
and heat-up time, and the lack of information regarding how cookware
may warp during typical consumer use, manufacturers would be unable to
determine whether any modification to the flatness of their coil
heating elements would improve contact conductance. Therefore, DOE
tentatively concludes that greater flatness of the heating element
would not result in energy savings for consumers, and maintains its
decision to not consider improved contact conductance as a technology
option. DOE is also not aware of any other technology options to
improve electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
For electric open (coil) element cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE
did not identify any technology options for improving efficiency.
DOE seeks comment on any existing technologies that improve the
efficiency of electric open (coil) element cooking tops.
For electric smooth element cooking tops, DOE has identified an
additional technology option: reduced air gap. Typical radiant element
cooking tops have an air gap between the heating element and the
ceramic-glass cooking top surface. Energy is expended to heat the air
between the heating element and the glass, with that heated air
providing minimal heating to the cooking vessel. One approach for
increasing the efficiency of a radiant element is to reduce the air gap
to reduce the amount of wasted heat.
For electric smooth element cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE
considered the technologies listed in Table IV.3.

Table IV.3--Technology Options for Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Halogen elements.
2. Induction elements.

[[Page 6841]]

3. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
4. Reduced air gap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional gas cooking tops listed in Table IV.4. 85 FR
80982, 80999-81000.

Table IV.4--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional Gas
Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Radiant gas burners.
2. Catalytic burners.
3. Reduced excess air at burner.
4. Reflective surfaces.
5. Optimized burner and grate design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD
regarding additional technology options for gas cooking tops.
For gas cooking tops, in this SNOPR, DOE considered the
technologies listed in Table IV.5.

Table IV.5--Technology Options for Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Catalytic burners.
2. Optimized burner and grate design.
3. Radiant gas burners.
4. Reduced excess air at burner.
5. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Conventional Ovens
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to consider the technology
options for conventional ovens listed in Table IV.6. 85 FR 80982,
81003.

Table IV.6--December 2020 NOPD Technology Options for Conventional Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Forced convection.
3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
4. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Oven separator (electric only).
9. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on review of the additional test data provided by AHAM and
GEA in response to the September 2016 SNOPR, in the December 2020 NOPD,
DOE agreed that replacing the intermittent glo-bar ignition system with
an intermittent/interrupted ignition or intermittent pilot ignition may
not achieve energy savings due to the elimination of heat input that
the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and food load, which must be
offset by additional gas consumption. Id. at 85 FR 81001. As a result,
DOE did not consider intermittent/interrupted or intermittent pilot
ignition systems as a technology option in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
NEEA recommended that DOE conduct its own testing to verify whether
or not there is an energy savings opportunity from intermittent pilot
ignition systems compared to glo-bar ignition systems. (NEEA, No. 88 at
p. 4)
NEEA has not provided any data or information to suggest that
intermittent pilot ignition systems provide any energy savings compared
to glo-bar ignition systems. DOE continues to agree with AHAM's
theoretical assertion that replacing the intermittent glo-bar ignition
system with an intermittent pilot ignition would eliminate the heat
input that the glo-bar contributes to the cavity and food load, which
must be offset by additional gas consumption. Because this theory is
supported by AHAM's test data, DOE continues to consider that
intermittent pilot ignition systems would not provide energy savings,
and is not considering them as a technology option in this SNOPR.
DOE requests information on the potential energy savings associated
with intermittent pilot ignition systems.
For gas and electric ovens, in this SNOPR, DOE considered the
technologies listed in Table IV.7.

Table IV.7--Technology Options for Conventional Electric and Gas Ovens
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bi-radiant oven (electric only).
2. Forced convection.
3. Halogen lamp oven (electric only).
4. Improved and added insulation (standard ovens only).
5. Improved door seals.
6. Low-standby-loss electronic controls.
7. No oven-door window.
8. Optimized burner and cavity design (gas only).
9. Oven separator (electric only).
10. Reduced vent rate (electric standard ovens only).
11. Reflective surfaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The following sections also include comments from interested
parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Conventional Electric Cooking Tops
Based on DOE's review of products available on the market and its
product teardowns, DOE stated in the December 2020 NOPD that it is not
aware of any cooking tops that incorporate halogen heating elements.
Id. at 85 FR 81004. Because this technology is currently not being used
commercially or in working prototypes, DOE stated that it does not
believe that it would be practicable to

[[Page 6842]]

produce this technology in commercial products on the scale necessary
to serve the market by the potential compliance date of the proposed
standards. Id. As a result, DOE screened out halogen elements from
further analysis in the December 2020 NOPD. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments on the December 2020 NOPD
regarding the screening analysis for conventional electric cooking
tops.
In this SNOPR, DOE maintains its tentative determination from the
December 2020 NOPD that it would not be practicable to manufacture,
install and service halogen heating elements for electric smooth
element cooking tops on the scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard, and
screened out this technology from further consideration.
In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally screening out a subset of low-
standby-loss electronic controls, namely those that use ``automatic
power-down'' because this type of low-standby-loss electronic controls
may negatively impact product utility. In particular, it may result in
a loss in the utility of the continuous clock display for combined
cooking products, such as ranges. However, it should be noted that the
other low-standby-loss electronic controls such as switch-mode power
supplies (``SMPSs'') were still analyzed in this SNOPR.
In this SNOPR, DOE is additionally screening out reduced air gap as
a technology option because DOE is aware that the air gaps in
commercialized radiant heating elements are currently as small as is
practicable to manufacture on the scale necessary to serve the cooking
products market. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of the magnitude of
potential energy savings from this technology.
DOE requests comment on the magnitude of potential energy savings
that could result from the use of a reduced air gap as a technology
option.
DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional
electric cooking tops and whether any additional technology options
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in
this SNOPR.
b. Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
For conventional gas cooking tops, in the September 2016 SNOPR and
the December 2020 NOPD, DOE screened out radiant gas burners, catalytic
burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective surfaces. 81 FR
60784, 60810-60811; 85 FR 80982, 81003.
In the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE considered different efficiency
levels associated with the optimized burner and grate design technology
option that it observed in products available on the market, including
a range of commercial-style gas cooking tops that maintain the
utilities discussed previously in section IV.A.1.a of this document. 81
FR 60784, 60817. DOE characterized the optimized burner and grate
design incremental efficiency levels based on different observed
features (e.g., HIR burners, grate types and material). Id.
In the December 2020 NOPD, DOE further noted that all gas cooking
tops on the market, including those with an optimized burner and grate
design, have been certified to applicable safety standards. 85 FR
80982, 81004. However, DOE recognized that the estimates for the energy
savings associated with optimized burner and grate design may vary
depending on the test procedure, and thus screened out this technology
option from further analysis of gas cooking tops in the December 2020
NOPD. Id. DOE stated that it would reevaluate the energy savings
associated with this technology option if it considered performance
standards in a future rulemaking. Id.
NEEA recommended that, under an updated test procedure, DOE
continue to evaluate screened out technologies such as optimized burner
and grate design, because NEEA believes this technology option has the
potential to impact efficiency significantly as it affects heat
transfer from the burner to the pot or pan. (NEEA, No. 88 at pp. 3-4)
NEEA recommended that, under an updated test procedure, DOE continue to
evaluate screened out technology options that may improve heat transfer
between the burner and the cooking vessel like the Turbo Pot product
which according to NEEA can improve efficiency by 50 to 60 percent
through a fin design on the pot. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 4) NEEA recommends
that, under an updated test procedure, DOE continue to evaluate
screened out technology options that improve transfer efficiency
between the burner and the cooking vessel including new burner face
materials (such as metal mesh, ceramics, and metal foam) and power
burners instead of atmospheric burners. (NEEA, No. 88 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs requested that DOE re-examine its reasoning for
screening out optimized grates and burners, because the CA IOUs believe
improvements to this technology could ultimately lead to a non-zero
savings value for gas cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 4) The CA
IOUs added that if the withdrawn test procedure is adequate to analyze
the efficiency improvements of grate design, and overall performance
improvement of other product classes' design features, it should not
preclude DOE from considering technologically feasible design
improvements that would improve energy efficiency in gas cooking tops.
(Id.)
As discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is considering
performance standards for cooking tops, based on new appendix I1.
Therefore, as discussed in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE is reevaluating
the energy savings associated with optimized burner and grate design.
As discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD for this SNOPR, DOE testing has
confirmed that optimizing the burner and grate system can lead to
reduced energy consumption, as measured under appendix I1. Therefore,
DOE is no longer screening out optimized burner and grate design from
its analysis.
However, DOE is aware of a wide range of optimized burner and grate
designs on the market, some of which may reduce the consumer utility
associated with HIR burners and continuous cast-iron grates. In this
SNOPR, DOE is screening out any optimized burner and grate designs that
would reduce consumer utility by only including in its analysis gas
cooking tops that include at least one HIR burner and continuous cast-
iron grates.
In this SNOPR, DOE is continuing to screen out catalytic burners,
radiant gas burners, reduced excess air at burner, and reflective
surfaces, for the same reasons as in the December 2020 NOPD.
DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional gas
cooking tops and whether any additional technology options should be
screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in this
SNOPR.
c. Conventional Ovens
For the same reasons discussed in the September 2016 SNOPR, DOE
screened out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no
oven door window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity
design from further analysis for conventional ovens in the December
2020 NOPD. 81 FR 60784, 60811; 85 FR 80982, 81004.
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE's screening analysis was
inconsistent. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2) In particular, the
Joint Commenters noted that technology options like optimized burner
and grate design for gas cooking tops were screened out due to the lack
of a test procedure whereas other technology options that rely on a
test procedure like improved insulation and improved door seals for
conventional ovens were kept

[[Page 6843]]

in the analysis. (Id.) The Joint Commenters added that new test
procedures should be established prior to conducting analysis of
potential standards. (Id.)
As discussed above, DOE is no longer screening out optimized burner
and grate design for gas cooking tops, due to the existence of the new
appendix I1 test procedure.
DOE agrees with the Joint Commenters and recognizes that the
estimates for the energy savings associated with improved insulation,
improved door seals and reduced vent rate may vary depending on the
test procedure, and thus is screening out these technology options from
further analysis of gas cooking tops in this SNOPR. DOE will reevaluate
the energy savings associated with this technology option if it
considers performance standards in a future rulemaking.
For the same reasons as discussed above for conventional electric
cooking tops, DOE is continuing to screen out the use of automatic
power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls. DOE is aware that the
use of automatic power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may
negatively impact product utility. In particular, the use of automatic
power-down low-standby-loss electronic controls may result in a loss in
the utility of the continuous clock display for ovens. However, it
should be noted that the other low-standby-loss electronic controls
such as SMPSs were still analyzed.
Because DOE did not receive any comments opposing the conventional
oven technology options screened out in the December 2020 NOPD, for the
same reasons discussed in the December 2020 NOPD, DOE is continuing to
screen out added insulation, bi-radiant oven, halogen lamp oven, no
oven door window, reflective surfaces, and optimized burner and cavity
design from further analysis in this SNOPR. DOE continues to seek
comment on the technology options screened out in this SNOPR.
DOE seeks comment on its screening analysis for conventional ovens
and whether any additional technology options should be screened out on
the basis of any of the screening criteria in this SNOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as
design options in DOE's SNOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen
out the technology options listed in Table IV.8.

Table IV.8--Retained Design Options for Consumer Conventional Cooking
Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Open (Coil) Element Cooking Tops:
None.
Electric Smooth Element Cooking Tops:
1. Induction elements.
2. Switch-mode power supply.
Gas Cooking Tops:
1. Optimized burner and grate design.
Conventional Ovens:
1. Forced convection.
2. Switch-mode power supply.
3. Oven separator (electric only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE seeks comment on the retained design options for consumer
conventional cooking products.
DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE
also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility,
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the TSD for
this SNOPR.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of consumer conventional
cooking products. There are two elements to consider in the engineering
analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the
``efficiency analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening
analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as
well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above
the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on
the market).
In this SNOPR, DOE is adopting a design-option approach supported
by testing, supplemented by reverse engineering (physical teardowns and
testing of existing products in the market) to identify the incremental
cost and efficiency improvement associated with each design option or
design option combination. The design-option approach is appropriate
for consumer conventional cooking products, given the lack of
certification data to determine the market distribution of existing
products and to identify efficiency level ``clusters'' that already
exist on the market. DOE also conducted interviews with manufacturers
of consumer conventional cooking prod

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 1, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.