Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)
DOCID: fr08ap09-17 FR Doc E9-7545
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
CFR Citation: 10 CFR Part 430
Docket ID: [Docket Number: EERE-2006-STD-0127]
RIN ID: RIN 1904-AB49
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr08ap09-17
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers)
DATES: The effective date of this rule is June 8, 2009. Compliance with the standards set by today's final rule is required on April 9, 2012.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing that it is amending energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens, because it has determined that such standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant conservation of energy, the three primary statutory criteria for adoption of standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). DOE is not adopting energy conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of residential electric kitchen ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, because it has determined that such standards would not be technologically feasible and economically justified. At this point, DOE has decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of amended energy conservation standards for the energy efficiency of commercial clothes washers and standby mode and off mode power consumption by microwave ovens, pending further rulemaking. Finally, DOE is not adopting amended standards for dishwashers and dehumidifiers in this rulemaking, because recent amendments to EPCA have already set standards for those products.
SUMMARY:
Energy Department,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule
A. The Standard Levels
1. Statutorily Set Standard Levels for Dehumidifiers and Dishwashers
2. The Standard Levels for the Energy Efficiency of Residential Cooking Products
3. Further Rulemaking for Commercial Clothes Washers and Microwave Ovens
B. Current Federal Standards
C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of Cooking Products
D. Impact on Manufacturers
E. National Benefits
F. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for the Two Appliance Products
3. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy Conservation Standards
for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Use and for Commercial Clothes Washers
III. General Discussion
A. Standby Power for Cooking Products
B. Test Procedures
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Gas Cooking ProductsAlternatives to LinePowered Electronic Ignition Systems
3. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers
b. LifeCycle Costs
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options
3. Excluded Product Classes and Technologies
B. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Levels
2. Manufacturing Costs
C. LifeCycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Product Prices
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Effective Date of the Amended Standards
9. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case
10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
11. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period
D. National Impact AnalysisNational Energy Savings and Net Present Value
1. General
2. Shipments
a. New Construction Shipments
b. Replacements
c. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and Household Income Impacts
d. Fuel Switching
3. Other Inputs
a. BaseCase Forecasted Efficiencies
b. StandardsCase Forecasted Efficiencies
c. Annual Energy Consumption
d. SitetoSource Conversion
e. Total Installed Costs and Operating Costs
f. Discount Rates
g. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
E. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
G. Employment Impact Analysis
H. Utility Impact Analysis
I. Environmental Assessment
V. Discussion of Other Comments
A. Burdens and Benefits
1. Consideration of the Value of Avoided Environmental Impacts
B. Other Comments
1. Proposed Standards for Conventional Cooking Products VI. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Significance of Energy Savings
C. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Consumers
a. LifeCycle Costs and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
[[Page 16041]]
a. Industry CashFlow Analysis Results
b. Impacts on Manufacturer Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses
d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. Net Present Value of Consumer Impacts and National Employment Impacts
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
D. Conclusion
1. Overview
2. Conventional Cooking Products
3. Microwave Ovens
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Reasons for the Final Rule
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rule
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
6. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small Manufacturers
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
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. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule
A. The Standard Levels
DOE notes that this rulemaking originally bundled four separate
residential and commercial products (dishwashers, dehumidifiers,
electric and gas kitchen ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, and
commercial clothes washers). However, as explained in further detail
below, various events occurred during the course of the rulemaking
which resulted in the consideration of a number of these products
separately. For example, Congress set efficiency levels by statute for
dishwashers and dehumidifiers, which DOE codified in its regulations
through a separate rulemaking (along with numerous other statutory
changes). At the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) stage, public
commenters made DOE aware of problems with the efficiency data for
certain commercial clothes washer models upon which DOE had relied in
its analyses. For microwave ovens, public commenters urged DOE to await
the impending finalization of the industry standard for measurement of
microwave oven standby mode and off mode power consumption before
adopting a corresponding DOE test procedure (a prerequisite for an
energy conservation standard addressing standby power). DOE believes
that both of these developments warrant further rulemaking action. For
these reasons, today's final rule is limited to addressing energy
conservation standards for the cooking efficiency of electric and gas kitchen ranges and ovens and microwave ovens.
1. Statutorily Set Standard Levels for Dehumidifiers and Dishwashers
As explained in detail in the NOPR in this proceeding, the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA
or the Act), initially contained energy conservation standards for
dehumidifiers and residential dishwashers, as well as requirements for
DOE to amend those standards, and DOE announced it would consider such
amendments to those standards in this rulemaking. 73 FR 62034, 6203640
(Oct. 17, 2008) (the October 2008 NOPR). However, the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law No. 110
40, subsequently amended these EPCA provisions in two ways pertinent
here. First, EISA 2007 prescribed efficiency standards for
dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012 and removed the
requirement for a rulemaking to amend the EPCA standards for this
product. Second, EISA 2007 prescribed maximum energy and water use
levels for residential dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1,
2010, and required completion of a final rule no later than January 1,
2015 to consider amendment of these dishwasher standards. 73 FR 62034,
6203840 (Oct. 17, 2008). (EISA 2007, section 311(a)(1)(2); 42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(10) and (cc)) DOE notes that although EISA 2007 did not
formally remove the requirement to conduct the current rulemaking, the
statutory standards for dishwashers are to become effective well before
the effective date of any amended standards that would have arisen from
the present rulemaking. Consequently, DOE has not conducted further
analysis in this rulemaking of standards for dehumidifiers and
residential dishwashers. 73 FR 62034, 62040 (Oct. 17, 2008). Instead,
DOE has incorporated into its regulations all of the energy
conservation standards prescribed by EISA 2007 for various products and
equipment, including those for dehumidifiers and residential
dishwashers, in a separate rulemaking notice. 74 FR 12058 (March 23, 2009).
2. The Standard Levels for the Energy Efficiency of Residential Cooking Products
Pursuant to EPCA, any amended energy conservation standard that DOE
prescribes for cooking products \1\ or commercial clothes washers
(collectively referred to in this final rule as ``the two appliance
products'') must be designed to ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, the new standard must ``result
in significant conservation of energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and
6316(a)) In today's final rule, DOE has decided to adopt amended energy
conservation standards pertaining to the cooking efficiency of
residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens pursuant to these criteria.
Today's final rule requires that residential gas kitchen ranges and
ovens without an electrical supply cord manufactured after April 9,
2012 must not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. DOE has
decided not to adopt energy conservation standards pertaining to the
cooking efficiency of residential electric kitchen ranges and ovens and
microwave ovens. As explained in further detail below, no cooking efficiency standards for these products were found to be
technologically feasible and economically justified.
\1\ The term ``cooking products'' as used in this notice refers
to residential electric and gas kitchen ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens.
3. Further Rulemaking for Commercial Clothes Washers and Microwave Ovens
DOE has decided to defer its decision regarding whether to adopt amended energy conservation standards for the energy efficiency of commercial clothes washers (CCWs) and for the standby mode and off mode power consumption of microwave ovens, pending further rulemaking. The reasons for DOE's decision are summarized below.
In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded for CCWs that a
standard of 1.76 modified energy factor (MEF) and 8.3 water consumption
factor (WF) for toploading CCWs and a standard of 2.0 MEF and 5.5 WF
for frontloading CCWs are technologically feasible and economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 62036 (Oct. 17, 2008). As
[[Page 16042]]
discussed in more detail in section II.B.3, DOE received comments on
the October 2008 NOPR that questioned the validity of the maximum
technologically feasible (maxtech) level that was used in the analysis
of toploading CCWs. DOE has concluded that additional information is
required to verify whether the maxtech level specified in the NOPR is appropriate.
Likewise, the October 2008 NOPR tentatively concluded that a standard for microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy consumption would be technologically feasible and economically justified. Therefore, concurrent with the standards NOPR, DOE published in the Federal Register a test procedure NOPR for microwave ovens to provide for the measurement of standby mode and off mode power consumption by these products. 73 FR 61134 (Oct. 17, 2008). As discussed in section II.B.3, DOE received comments on the October 2008 NOPR that objected to certain definitions that were included in the proposed microwave oven test procedure amendments. The commenters supported the incorporation of definitions provided in a revision of an industry standard for measuring standby power consumption expected to be completed later this year. DOE has concluded that it should defer consideration of microwave oven energy conservation standards until the revised industry standard becomes available for consideration in the microwave oven test procedure amendments.
DOE intends to complete the rulemaking process for these products and equipment as expected once additional key data and information become available, keeping in mind the relevant statutory deadlines. As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 2008), the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA require DOE to amend the ranges and ovens and microwave oven test procedure to incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption no later than March 31, 2011. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)) For CCWs, EPCA requires that DOE issue a final rule by January 1, 2010, to determine whether the existing energy conservation standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(2)(A)) B. Current Federal Standards
DOE established the current energy conservation standards for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 14, 1994, in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 14, 1991 (56 FR 22250). These standards include a requirement that the energy factor (EF) of a standardsize dishwasher must not be less than 0.46 cycles per kilowatthour (kWh) and that the EF of a compactsize dishwasher must not be less than 0.62 cycles per kWh. (10 CFR 430.32(f)) Section 311(a)(2) of EISA 2007 established maximum energy and water use levels for dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) Under the amended statute, a standardsize dishwasher shall not exceed 355 kWh/year and 6.5 gallons of water per cycle, and a compactsize dishwasher shall not exceed 260 kWh/year and 4.5 gallons of water per cycle.
EPCA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005),
Public Law 10958, prescribes the current energy conservation standard
for dehumidifiers, shown in Table I.1. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(1); 10 CFR
430.32(v)) Section 311(a)(1) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to prescribe
minimum efficiency levels for dehumidifiers manufactured on or after October 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2))
Table I.1Federal Standards for Residential Dehumidifiers
EPACT 2005 standards effective October 1, 2007 EISA 2007 standards effective October 1, 2012
Dehumidifier capacity pints/day EF liters/kWh Dehumidifier capacity pints/day EF liters/kWh
25.00 or less................................. 1.00 Up to 35.00..................... 1.35
25.0135.00................................... 1.20 35.0145.00..................... 1.50
35.0154.00................................... 1.30 45.0154.00..................... 1.60
54.0174.99................................... 1.50 54.0175.00..................... 1.70
75.00 or more................................. 2.25 Greater than 75.00.............. 2.5
EPCA prescribes the current energy conservation standard for cooking products, which includes a requirement that gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord that are manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(j)) Currently, no mandatory Federal energy conservation standards exist for conventional electric ranges and ovens or for microwave ovens.
EPCA also prescribes standards for CCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, requiring that CCWs have an MEF of at least 1.26 and a WF of not more than 9.5. (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1); 10 CFR 431.156) C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of Cooking Products
In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE considered the impacts on consumers of several trial standard levels (TSLs) related to the cooking efficiency of conventional cooking products and microwave ovens. 73 FR 62034, 62037, 6208490 (Oct. 17, 2008). In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that none of the TSLs for microwave oven cooking efficiency were economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 62119 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE has reached the same conclusion in today's final rule. Therefore, at this time, DOE is not adopting standards for microwave oven cooking efficiency (EF), so there will be no positive or negative impacts on purchasers of these products.
Also in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined that at TSL 1, the
economic impacts (i.e., the average lifecycle cost (LCC) savings) on
consumers of the proposed standards for conventional cooking products
would be positive. (TSL 1 prohibits constant burning pilots for gas
appliances but does not change standards for the other product
classes.) DOE has reached the same conclusion in today's final rule.
Table I.2 presents the impacts on consumers of the energy conservation standards adopted in today's final rule.
[[Page 16043]]
Table I.2Implications of Amended Standards for Consumers
Gas cooktops Gas standard ovens New average installed cost.. $332................ $464.
Estimated installed cost $22................. $34.
increase.
Lifetime operating cost $37................. $43.
savings.
Average payback period...... 3.3 years........... 7.0 years.
The typical baseline gas cooktop has an installed price of $310 and an average lifetime operating cost of $561, resulting in a total life cycle cost of $871. To meet the new standards, DOE estimates that the installed price of this product will be $332, an increase of $22. This price increase will be offset by lifetime operating cost savings of $37, resulting in lifecycle cost savings of $15. For gas standard ovens, the typical baseline product has an installed price of $430 and an annual average lifetime operating cost of $406, resulting in a total lifecycle cost of $836. To meet the new standards, DOE estimates that the installed price of this product will be $464, an increase of $34. This price increase will be offset by lifetime operating cost savings of $43, resulting in lifecycle cost savings of $9.
For the subgroup of consumers who do not have access to the electrical grid or whose religious and cultural practices prohibit the use of grid electricity, the amended standards would require use of technologies (e.g., a batterypowered sparkignition device) that have not yet been certified to meet applicable safety standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 4(a)(4)(i) and (iv), and 5(b)(1) and (4). (See sections III.C.2 and VI.D.2 of this notice for further discussion.) Based on its research, DOE expects that certification of such technologies under applicable safety standards will likely be completed when these standards become effective.
D. Impact on Manufacturers
Using a real corporate discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates the industry net present value (INPV) in 2006$ of the gas cooktop, gas oven, and microwave oven industries to be $288 million, $469 million, and $1.46 billion, respectively, in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE estimates the impact of the cooking efficiency standards adopted in today's final rule on the INPV of manufacturers of these products to be between a 1.73percent loss and a 4.11percent loss ($5 million to $12 million) for gas cooktop manufacturers and between a 1.56percent loss and a 2.10percent loss ($7 million to $10 million) for gas oven manufacturers. Because DOE is not adopting standards for cooking efficiency of conventional electric cooking products or microwave ovens (and because consideration of a standby mode and off mode standard for microwave ovens has been deferred), this final rule will have no net impact on manufacturers of these products.
Based on DOE's interviews with manufacturers of cooking products and on comments received on the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined that two small businesses that manufacture gas cooking products could be disproportionately affected by standards. (See section VII.B of this notice for further discussion.)
E. National Benefits
DOE estimates the standards will save approximately 0.14 quads (quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (BTU)) of energy over 30 years (20122042). This is equivalent to 2.9 days of U.S. gasoline use.
By 2042, DOE expects the energy savings from the standards to
eliminate the need for approximately 62 megawatts (MW) of generating
capacity.\2\ These energy savings will result in cumulative
(undiscounted) greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 13.7
million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO
\2\ Because the amended standards affect solely residential gas
consumption, the installed power plant generating capacity change
represents only 0.005 percent of the total installed generating
capacity forecasted for the year 2030. Therefore, both the installed
capacity change and its associated emission reductions are
negligible. Although effectively negligible, installed generation
capacity and emission impacts are still reported in section VI of today's final rule for TSL 1 (the amended standards).
Additionally, the standards will help alleviate air pollution by
resulting in approximately 6.1 kilotons (kt)) of nitrogen oxides
(NO
The national NPV of the standards is $254 million using a 7percent discount rate and $706 million using a 3percent discount rate, cumulative from 2012 to 2042 in 2006$. This is the estimated total value of future savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs, discounted to 2007.
The benefits and costs of today's final rule to the Nation can also be expressed in terms of annualized [2006$] values over the forecast period (2012 through 2042). Using a 7percent discount rate for the annualized cost analysis, the cost of the standards established in today's final rule is $17 million per year in increased product and installation costs, while the annualized benefits are $37 million per year in reduced product operating costs. Using a 3percent discount rate, the cost of the standards established in today's final rule is $28 million per year and the benefits are $85 million per year. F. Conclusion
DOE has evaluated the benefits (energy savings, consumer LCC
savings, positive national NPV, and emissions reductions) to the Nation
of amended energy conservation standards for gas cooking products and
of new cooking efficiency standards for conventional electric cooking
products and microwave ovens, as well as the costs of such standards
(loss of manufacturer INPV and consumer LCC increases for some users of
the cooking products). Based on all available information, DOE has determined that the benefits to the
[[Page 16044]]
Nation of the standards for gas cooking products outweigh their costs.
Today's standards also represent the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified,
and will result in significant energy savings. At present, gas cooking
products that meet the amended standard levels are commercially
available or, for the subgroup of consumers without access to the
electrical grid or whose religious or cultural practices prohibit the
use of grid electricity, are likely to be commercially available at the time the standards become effective.
II. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part A \3\ of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291
6309) provides for the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.'' The program covers consumer products
and certain commercial products (all of which are referred to hereafter
as ``covered products''), including electric and gas kitchen ranges and
ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6292(10), 6295(h)) Part A1 \4\ of Title III (42
U.S.C. 63116317) establishes a similar program for ``Certain
Industrial Equipment'' (referred to hereafter as ``covered
equipment''), including commercial clothes washers. (42 U.S.C. 6312,
6313(e)) Part A of Title III provides for test procedures, labeling,
and energy conservation standards for residential cooking products and
certain other types of products, and it authorizes DOE to require information and reports from manufacturers.
\3\ This part was originally titled Part B. It was redesignated Part A in the United States Code for editorial reasons.
\4\ This part was originally titled Part C. It was redesignated Part A1 in the United States Code for editorial reasons.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 10012, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for cooking products. NAECA requires 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, and requires DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings for ranges and ovens to determine if the standards established should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)(2)) The test procedures for cooking products appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I.
DOE is conducting the present rulemaking for cooking products pursuant to the authority set forth above. The following paragraphs discuss some of the key provisions of EPCA relevant to the standards setting rulemaking.
EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. As indicated above, any new or amended standard for cooking products must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if DOE determines by rule that such a standard would not result in ``significant conservation of energy,'' or ``is not technologically feasible or economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a))
EPCA also provides that in deciding whether such a standard is economically justified for covered products, DOE must, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a))
In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a)), establishes a rebuttable presumption that any standard for covered products 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 (and as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard,'' as calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard.
EPCA also contains what is commonly known as an ``anti backsliding'' provision. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) This provision mandates that the Secretary not prescribe any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. EPCA further provides that 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 of any product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))
Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA is applicable to promulgating standards for any type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a)) Under this provision, DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of product for any group of products ``which have the same function or intended use, if * * * 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 performancerelated feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard'' than applies or will apply to the other products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies such a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider ``such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature'' and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which DOE established such higher or lower level. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)).
Federal energy conservation standards for covered products
generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)(c)
and 6316(a)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and
[[Page 16045]]
other provisions of section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(a))
B. Background
1. Current Standards
As described in greater detail in the October 2008 NOPR, 73 FR
62034, 6203940 (Oct. 17, 2008), the current energy conservation
standards in EPCA for dishwashers apply to all products manufactured on
or after May 14, 1994 (10 CFR 430.32(f)); for dehumidifiers, to all
products manufactured on or after October 1, 2007 (42 U.S.C.
6295(cc)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(v)); for cooking products, to all products
manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1); 10 CFR
430.32(j)); and for CCWs to all equipment manufactured on or after
January 1, 2007 (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)(1); 10 CFR 431.156). In addition,
EISA 2007 established standards for dishwashers manufactured on or
after January 1, 2010 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) and for dehumidifiers
manufactured on or after October 1, 2012 (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)(2)). These standards are discussed in section I.B.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for the Two Appliance Products
As noted above, this rulemaking originally bundled four products (dishwashers, dehumidifiers, residential cooking products, and commercial clothes washers). However, during the course of this rulemaking, Congress set energy conservation standard levels by statute for dishwashers and dehumidifiers as part of EISA 2007. Accordingly, the regulatory history provided below focuses on the two remaining appliance productsresidential cooking products and commercial clothes washers.
NAECA amended EPCA to establish the current prescriptive standard requiring gas ranges and ovens with an electrical supply cord not to be equipped with a constant burning pilot light. (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(1)) In a rulemaking undertaken pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)(2)), DOE issued a final rule in which it found that standards were not justified for electric cooking products and, partially due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating the economic impacts of standards for gas fired ranges and ovens, did not include amended standards for gasfired ranges and ovens in the final rule. 63 FR 48038 (Sept. 8, 1998).
Section 136(a) and (e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 10958, amended EPCA to add CCWs as covered equipment, establish the current standards for such equipment, and require that DOE do two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1) and 6313(e)) DOE has incorporated these standards into its regulations. 70 FR 60407, 60416 (Oct. 18, 2005); 10 CFR 431.156.
DOE commenced this rulemaking on March 15, 2006, by publishing its framework document for the rulemaking, and then gave notice of a public meeting and of the availability of the document. 71 FR 15059 (March 27, 2006). The framework document described the approaches DOE anticipated using and issues to be resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held the public meeting on April 27, 2006, to present the contents of the framework document, describe the analyses DOE planned to conduct during the rulemaking, obtain public comment on these subjects, and facilitate the public's involvement in the rulemaking. DOE also allowed the submission of written statements after the public meeting. In response, DOE received 11 written statements.
On December 4, 2006, DOE posted two spreadsheet tools for this rulemaking on its Web site. The tools included calculation of the impacts of the candidate standard levels developed for the two appliance products. One tool calculates LCC and payback periods (PBPs); the otherthe National Impact Analysis (NIA) Spreadsheetcalculates shipments, national energy savings (NES), and NPV.
On November 15, 2007, DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) in this proceeding. 72 FR 64432 (November 2007 ANOPR). In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE described and sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to analyze the impacts of energy conservation standards for the relevant appliance products. In addition, DOE published on its Web site the complete ANOPR technical support document (TSD), which included the results of DOE's preliminary analyses in this rulemaking. In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE requested oral and written comments on these preliminary results and on a range of other issues, including the measurement of microwave oven standby power consumption and potential CCW product classes. DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on December 13, 2007, to present the methodology and results of the ANOPR analyses, and to receive oral comments from those who attended. The oral and written comments DOE received focused on DOE's assumptions, approach, and analytical results, and were addressed in detail in the October 2008 NOPR.
In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed new energy conservation
standards for the two appliance products. 73 FR 62034, 62134 (Oct. 17,
2008). It also provided additional background information on the
history of this rulemaking. Id. at 6204041. In conjunction with the
October 2008 NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete TSD
for the proposed rule, which incorporated the analyses DOE conducted
and technical documentation for each analysis. The LCC spreadsheets,
national impact analysis spreadsheets, Government Regulatory Impact
Model (GRIM) spreadsheets, and regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
spreadsheets are also available on DOE's Web site.\5\ The standards
proposed for the two appliance products are presented in Table II.1.
\5\ Available online at DOE's Web site: http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ home_appl_analysis.html.
Table II.1October 2008 Proposed Energy Efficiency Standards
Product class Proposed energy conservation standards Kitchen ranges and ovens:
Gas cooktops/conventional burners.. No constant burning pilot lights.
Electric cooktops/low or high No standard. wattage open (coil) elements.
Electric cooktops/smooth elements.. No standard.
Gas ovens/standard oven............ No constant burning pilot lights.
Gas ovens/selfclean oven.......... No change to existing standard.
Electric ovens..................... No standard. [[Page 16046]]
Microwave ovens.................... Maximum standby power = 1.0 watt. Commercial clothes washers:
Toploading commercial clothes 1.76 Modified Energy Factor/8.3 Water Factor. washers.
Frontloading commercial clothes 2.00 Modified Energy Factor/5.5 Water Factor. washers.
In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE discussed and invited comment
specifically on the following topics: (1) The proposed standards for
residential gas kitchen ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, and CCWs, as
well as DOE's tentative conclusion that standards for residential
electric kitchen ranges and ovens other than microwave ovens and gas
selfcleaning ovens are not technologically feasible and economically
justified; (2) whether batterypowered spark ignition modules are a
viable alternative to standing pilots for manufacturers of gas ranges,
ovens, and cooktops; (3) the technical feasibility of incorporating
microwave oven cooking efficiency with standby mode and off mode power
into a single metric for the purpose of developing energy conservation
standards; (4) input and data regarding off mode power for microwave
ovens; (5) input and data on the utility provided by specific features
that contribute to microwave oven standby power, particularly display
technologies and cooking sensors that do not require standby power; (6)
input and data on control strategies available to allow manufacturers
to make design tradeoffs between incorporating standbypowerconsuming
features such as displays or cooking sensors and including a function
to turn power off to these components during standby mode, as well as
on the viability and cost of microwave oven control board circuitry
that could accommodate transistors to switch off cooking sensors and
displays; (7) whether switching or similar modern power supplies can
operate successfully inside a microwave oven and the associated
efficiency impacts on standby power; (8) the selection of microwave
oven standby standard levels for the engineering analysis; (9) input
and data on the estimated incremental manufacturing costs, the assumed
approaches to achieve each standby level for microwave ovens, and
whether any intellectual property or patent infringement issues are
associated with the design options presented in the TSD to achieve each
standby level; (10) input and data on the estimated market share of
microwave ovens at different standby power consumption levels; (11) the
appropriateness of using other discount rates in addition to 7 percent
and 3 percent real to discount future emissions reductions; and (12)
the determination of the anticipated environmental impacts of the
proposed rule, particularly with respect to the methods for valuing the
expected carbon dioxide (CO
In addition to these topics on which it requested comment specifically, DOE addressed four topics in the October 2008 NOPR: (1) The determination of product classes for both cooking products and CCWs; (2) the adequacy of the residential clothes washer test procedure for CCWs; (3) small business impacts of the proposed cooking products standards; and (4) impacts of the proposed CCW standards on the competitive landscape.
DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2008,
to hear oral comments on and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule.
3. Further Rulemaking To Consider Energy Conservation Standards for
Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Power Use and for Commercial Clothes Washers
Among the responses to the October 2008 NOPR, DOE received a number of comments from interested parties that presented information and arguments for continuing the rulemaking process to consider standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode power consumption, as well as standards for CCWs. These comments and DOE's response are discussed below.
Regarding microwave oven standby mode and off mode power consumption, interested parties raised concerns over issues associated with the concurrent microwave oven test procedure rulemaking. As mentioned above and discussed in detail in section III.B of today's notice, DOE proposed to amend the microwave oven (MWO) test procedure to incorporate by reference specific clauses of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, Household electrical appliancesMeasurement of standby power. DOE would have adopted definitions for ``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' in accordance with the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. 73 FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008) (MWO test procedure NOPR).
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) raised
concerns about the ``robustness'' of these proposed microwave oven test
procedure amendments, and supported continuing the microwave oven
energy conservation standards rulemaking to allow additional time for
DOE to collect data and to clarify the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 47 at
pp. 3 and 5) \6\ Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) stated that DOE
could perform better data gathering and analysis for a microwave oven
standby power standard if DOE used the entire time until the EISA 2007
deadline of March 31, 2011 for a test procedure amendment to
incorporate measurement of standby mode and off mode power consumption.
Whirlpool and GE Consumer & Industrial (GE) requested that DOE halt the
current microwave oven energy conservation standards rulemaking and
work with industry to gather and analyze more comprehensive energy
performance data. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at pp. 12; GE, No. 48 at p. 2) GE
further stated that DOE's approach to standby mode and off mode power
consumption for microwave ovens could have important implications for
other covered products, and that the microwave oven energy conservation
standards rulemaking should be postponed to allow DOE to address
standby power issues for covered products either through negotiation or
through a rulemaking that considers how the definition of ``standby
power'' will affect all appliances, not just microwave ovens. (GE, No. 48 at p. 4)
\6\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 3 and 5''
identifies a written comment (1) made by AHAM; (2) recorded in
document number 47 that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking
(Docket No. EE2006STD0127) and maintained in the Resource Room of
the Building Technologies Program; and (3) which appears on pages 3 and 5 of document number 47.
AHAM raised four other concerns about the proposed microwave oven
test procedure amendments: (1) Which microwave ovens are covered products; (2) the incorporation of the EPCA
[[Page 16047]]
definitions for ``standby mode'' and ``off mode,'' which AHAM claims
are outdated; (3) the conditions for standby power testing; and (4) the
test period for measuring standby power. AHAM stated that there is
considerable confusion regarding the definition of microwave ovens as
covered products. DOE stated in the microwave oven test procedure NOPR
that the test procedure amendments would apply to microwave ovens for
which the primary source of heating energy is electromagnetic
(microwave) energy, including microwave ovens with or without browning
thermal elements designed for surface browning of food. The proposed
test procedure amendments would not cover combination ovens (i.e.,
ovens consisting of a single compartment in which microwave energy and
one or more other technologies, such as thermal or halogen cooking
elements or convection systems, contribute to cooking the food). 73 FR
62134, 62137 (Oct. 17, 2008). AHAM stated that it had been working to
set up negotiations on a microwave oven standby power standard, but
that confusion caused by DOE's definition of microwave ovens required
AHAM to cancel its efforts until the definition is clarified. (AHAM,
No. 47 at p. 3) Whirlpool concurred that the definition of microwave
ovens needs to be clarified. It claimed that DOE appears to be creating
a new product definition without properly engaging interested parties.
(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29; Whirlpool, No. 50, at pp. 12) \7\
\7\ A notation in the form ``Whirlpool, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29'' identifies an oral comment that DOE
received during the November 13, 2008, NOPR public meeting, was
recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket No. EE2006STD0127), and is maintained in the
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. This particular
notation refers to a comment (1) made by Whirlpool during the public
meeting; (2) recorded in document number 40.5, which is the public
meeting transcript that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) which appears on page 29 of document number 40.5.
The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that it appreciates DOE accelerating development of the microwave oven test procedure ahead of the EISA 2007 deadline of 2011 so that standby power savings can be captured in this round of rulemaking for cooking products. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 32)
Regarding definitions of ``standby mode'' and ``off mode,'' AHAM and Whirlpool recognize that DOE is using the definitions provided under the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, but stated that DOE should consider IEC's recent work in developing the second edition of IEC Standard 62301, particularly the clarifications of the definitions of ``standby mode'' and ``off mode.'' AHAM cited the case in which a microwave oven would be plugged in and only energize a lightemitting diode (LED) or some other indication that the unit is in ``off mode.'' AHAM commented that this would represent a different way for the product to communicate with the consumer that might not be covered under the proposed mode definitions. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 5860; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 6061) In contrast, ASAP stated that the EISA 2007 language defining ``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' was reviewed and agreed to by AHAM, and jointly recommended by AHAM and efficiency advocates to Congress. Therefore, ASAP asserted that DOE has definitions that were recommended by interested parties. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 64)
In the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE proposed considering a single
product class for microwave ovens, encompassing microwave ovens with
and without browning (thermal) elements. This product class did not
include microwave ovens that incorporate convection systems. DOE stated that it was unaware of any data evaluating the efficiency
characteristics of microwave ovens incorporating convection systems,
and sought comments and information that would help it evaluate the
performance of such products. 72 FR 64432, 64445, 64513 (Nov. 15,
2007). AHAM commented in response that the single product class should
be broken up into subcategories according to features that may be
different than when the standard was first put into effect. 73 FR
62034, 62049 (Oct. 17, 2008). However, in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE
concluded, based on data supplied by AHAM and its own testing, that no
features or utilities were uniquely correlated with efficiency that
would warrant defining multiple product classes for microwave ovens.
Id. Therefore, for the purposes of the NOPR analyses, DOE retained a
single product class for microwave ovens. No additional data or
information was submitted in response to the October 2008 NOPR that
would justify amending the definition of the microwave oven product class.
DOE agrees with commenters that it is beneficial to harmonize, where possible, its standards and test procedures with those of other countries and international agencies, particularly in the area of standby power. DOE recognizes that IEC Standard 62301 is an internationally accepted test standard for the measurement of standby power in residential appliances, and that it would be beneficial to many manufacturers to be required to meet only a single standby power standard because they produce microwave ovens for markets in multiple countries. In considering a standby power standard for microwave ovens, along with associated amendments to the microwave oven test procedure, DOE proposed to incorporate language for definitions of ``active mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off mode'' as provided by the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)) However, in directing DOE to amend its test procedures to address standby and off mode power consumption, the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA allow DOE to amend the EPCA definitions of these modes, while requiring that DOE take ``into consideration the most current versions'' of IEC Standard 62301 and IEC Standard 62087. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(B) and (2)(A)) In light of these statutory provisions and recognizing the benefits of harmonization, DOE has decided to continue this rulemaking, as to microwave oven standby power standards, until the second edition of IEC Standard 62301 is finalized, which is expected to occur by July 2009. At such time, DOE will consider further modifications to DOE's microwave oven test procedure, particularly the ``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' definitions, and, on the basis of such amended test procedures, DOE will analyze potential energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy consumption. DOE invites data and information that will allow it to further conduct the analysis for standby and off mode power consumption of microwave ovens. DOE anticipates issuing supplemental notices of proposed rulemaking (SNOPRs) for microwave oven energy conservation standards and the microwave oven test procedure in order to obtain public input on DOE's updated proposals. As part of such SNOPRs, DOE will carefully consider and address any microwave ovenrelated comments on the October 2008 NOPR that remain relevant.
For CCWs, interested parties raised questions at the November 13,
2008, NOPR public meeting and in written comments on the maxtech level
that DOE had identified in the October 2008 NOPR for toploading units.
(See section III.C.3 of this notice for additional discussion of max tech levels.)
[[Page 16048]]
Specifically, at the public meeting, Alliance Laundry Systems
(Alliance) questioned the validity of the certification data for the
CCW model on which DOE based the maxtech level for toploading
machines. Alliance recommended that DOE, at a minimum, test and confirm
the performance of the maxtech model before using it as the basis for
assessing technical feasibility for the proposed standards. (Alliance,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 9092) GE responded that it
produces the model in question, and its internal testing confirms that
the model meets the maxtech level. (GE, No. 48 at pp. 45) GE and
Alliance agreed that there would not be consumer acceptance of the
technology required to achieve the maxtech level (i.e., whether CCWs
incorporating advanced controls in a lightweight, nonrugged platform
would be able to withstand the harsher usage in a laundromat or multi
family housing setting compared to a residential installation). (GE,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 173174; Alliance, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 23; Alliance, No. 45 at p. 1;
Alliance, No. 45.1 at pp. 3, 7, 13) GE stated that it had received
anecdotal consumer questions on the water levels and clothing turnover
(i.e., rotation of the clothing from top to bottom in the wash basket)
during the cycle utilized by its CCW that meets the toploading max
tech level. According to GE, while this CCW has achieved the maxtech
level during actual use in the onpremises laundry segment,\8\ it has
not yet been justified as sustainable in commercial laundromats where
the units are subject to much tougher conditions, such as overloading. (GE, No. 48 at p. 4)
\8\ This segment refers to commercial clothes washers that are installed in multifamily housing.
The MultiHousing Laundry Association (MLA) commented that there is no acceptable CCW currently that can meet the toploading maxtech level presented in the October 2008 NOPR. According to MLA, previous nonagitator CCWs that could achieve maxtech performance have had poor load capacity, poor wash results, and high maintenance costs. MLA believes that the only way to meet the maxtech requirements would be to have either a cold water wash or such limited amounts of hot water that the clothes would not be effectively cleaned. According to MLA, to meet the maxtech requirements, water in the rinse cycle would be so limited that some soils, detergents, and sand would not be removed. (MLA, No. 49 at p. 4) ASAP stated that DOE's conclusion in the TSD on the maxtech model (i.e., that all higherefficiency residential clothes washers are impellertype or do not have traditional agitators) is erroneous, commenting that there are agitatortype residential clothes washers on the market today that perform at higher levels than the CCW maxtech level that DOE has presented in the October 2008 NOPR. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 203) Whirlpool commented that the maxtech level cannot be achieved with the technologies implemented on current CCW models, but it believes that technology exists to develop such products by the time standards would become effective. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 3)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the maxtech level in the analysis of efficiency levels for CCW energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) In the NOPR analysis, DOE determined that the maxtech level for toploading CCWs, which was analyzed as part of TSL 3, is technologically feasible and economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 62122 (Oct. 17, 2008). However, the comments submitted by Alliance in response to the October 2008 NOPR raised questions on the validity of the maxtech level. (Alliance, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 9092; Alliance, No. 45 at p. 1; Alliance, No. 45.1 at pp. 45) In light of this uncertainty surrounding the performance of the CCW model upon which the toploading maxtech level was based, DOE tested several units of that model. Preliminary results indicate that the MEF and WF of these units are below and above, respectively, the maxtech levels. Therefore, DOE has decided that it will continue the CCW rulemaking to further evaluate what an appropriate maxtech level should be for toploading CCWs, and it will revise its analyses for this product class as necessary. DOE anticipates issuing an SNOPR to obtain public input on DOE's updated proposal regarding CCW standards. As part of such SNOPR, DOE will carefully consider and address any CCW related comments on the October 2008 NOPR that remain relevant. III. General Discussion
A. Standby Power for Cooking Products
An issue in this rulemaking has been whether DOE should consider power use in the standby and off modes in adopting energy conservation standards for cooking products. As discussed in greater detail in the October 2008 NOPR,\9\ EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that DOE address standby mode and off mode energy consumption both in adopting standards for all covered products (for final rules for new or amended standards adopted after July 1, 2010), including residential ranges and ovens and microwave ovens, and in test procedures for covered products (by March 31, 2011, for cooking products). (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) As noted above, these provisions are not yet operative as requirements for residential cooking products. Id.
\9\ 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 2008).
Nonetheless, DOE has examined in this rulemaking whether to incorporate standby mode and off mode power consumption in its energy conservation standards for residential cooking products. 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct. 17, 2008). Specifically, in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE stated that it does not intend to pursue revision of its standards and test procedures to include standby power use by conventional cooking products at this time, because it lacks data indicating the potential for significant energy savings with respect to such power use. Id. at 62041, 62044. Accordingly, DOE tentatively decided to consider test procedure amendments for conventional cooking products in a later rulemaking that meets the March 31, 2011, deadline set by EISA 2007 under 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B). 73 FR 62034, 62041, 62044 (Oct. 17, 2008).
However, DOE did state its intention in the October 2008 NOPR to amend its test procedure for microwave ovens to incorporate a measurement of standby power and to consider inclusion of such power as part of the energy conservation standards rulemaking for the following reasons: (1) Energy use in this mode is a significant proportion of microwave oven energy consumption; and (2) currently, the range of standby power use among microwave ovens suggests that a standard would result in significant energy savings. Id. at 6204142. As already discussed in sections II.B.2 and II.B.3, DOE proposed standards for microwave oven standby power use. Id. at 62120, 62134.
In response to the October 2008 NOPR, Whirlpool stated that no test
procedure has yet been proposed for conventional cooking product
standby power, and that Whirlpool does not have experience with or data
available on standby power in these products. It further stated that
DOE should request such data promptly to allow adequate time to develop
it, noting that display technologies will be an issue. (Whirlpool,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 30) DOE expects to [[Page 16049]]
evaluate standby power for conventional cooking products in a future
test procedure rulemaking that will meet the EPCA deadline of March 31,
2011, set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B). 73 FR 62034, 62041 (Oct.
17, 2008). DOE welcomes relevant data to support this rulemaking activity.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) commented that standby power could effectively be addressed in gas cooking products with constant burning pilots by a performance standard for the energy consumption of the pilot, rather than by a prescriptive standard that would eliminate constant burning pilots altogether. EEI argued that even though energy savings would be reduced using this approach, such savings could still be fairly significant, and manufacturers would have more flexibility in meeting the energy conservation standards. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 1920 and 5051; EEI, No. 56 at p. 2)
In response, DOE notes as a preliminary matter that it considered EEI's suggestion of reduced input rate pilots as a technology option separately in section IV.A.2. The following responds to EEI's suggestion to consider an energy conservation standard for standby power consumption of ranges and ovens by regulating the performance of constant burning pilots. For standby power in conventional cooking products, the current DOE test procedures already provide a means for measurement of certain standby energy use (i.e., pilot gas consumption in gas cooking products and clock energy consumption in ovens), which is included in the relevant EF metric. However, as explained above, to measure additional standby mode and off mode energy use as directed by EISA 2007, DOE would need to amend the test procedure to provide for more comprehensive measurement of standby mode and off mode power consumption. As discussed above, DOE is not contemplating revision of its standards and test procedures to address standby power use for conventional cooking products at this time. DOE plans to consider such revisions to the test procedure in a later rulemaking which meets the EPCA deadline of March 31, 2011. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(vi)). DOE will also consider standby mode and off mode energy use in its next energy conservation standards rulemaking, as required by the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)).
Further, even if DOE were to implement in this rulemaking the requirements of the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA regarding standby mode and off mode energy use to conventional cooking products, DOE would be unable to prescribe a separate standard for pilot energy consumption in gas cooking products. The EISA 2007 amendments require that any final rule establishing or revising a standard for a covered product, adopted after July 1, 2010, shall incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single amended or new standard, if feasible. If not feasible, the final rule shall establish a separate standard for standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if justified under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Because gas cooking product EF already incorporates gas consumption of the pilot by means of the calculation of annual energy consumption (10 CFR 430.23(i) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I, sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2), the feasibility of a single metric integrating both active mode and standby mode energy use has clearly been demonstrated. AHAM stated that it strongly advocates, for products other than microwave ovens, that standby power be incorporated in active energy standards as directed by EISA 2007. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4) DOE expects to address standby mode and off mode power consumption in future test procedure and standards rulemakings for products other than microwave ovens in accordance with the requirements of the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. At such time, DOE will determine whether standby mode and off mode energy use can be incorporated into a new or amended energy conservation standard as directed by 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3).
For microwave ovens, DOE separately considered whether it is feasible to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single metric. DOE tentatively concluded in the October 2008 NOPR that although it may be mathematically possible to combine energy consumption into a single metric encompassing active (cooking), standby, and off modes, it is not technically feasible to do so at this time because of the high variability in the current cooking efficiency measurement from which the active mode EF and annual energy consumption are derived, and because of the significant contribution of standby power to overall microwave oven energy use. 73 FR 62034, 6204243 (Oct. 17, 2008). AHAM, Whirlpool, ASAP, and EEI individually, as well as ASAP, American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), American Rivers (AR), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Earthjustice (EJ) jointly (hereafter ``Joint Comment'') supported the determination that a combined energy metric for microwave ovens is technically infeasible. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 27 and 5455; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29; AS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mr. Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 205850121. Telephone: (202) 5867463. Email:
Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 205850121. Telephone: (202) 5869507. Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov or Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.