[Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64431-64515]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15no07-35]
[[Page 64431]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 430 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain
Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Electric and Gas Kitchen
Ranges and Ovens, and Microwave Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers); Proposed Rule
[[Page 64432]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Parts 430 and 431
[Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0127]
RIN 1904-AB49
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Electric and Gas
Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, and Microwave Ovens) and for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Commercial Clothes Washers)
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act)
authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy
conservation standards for various consumer products and commercial and
industrial equipment--including residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers,
and electric and gas kitchen ranges and ovens and microwave ovens
(hereafter referred to as ``cooking products''), as well as commercial
clothes washers--if DOE determines that energy conservation standards
would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would
result in significant energy savings. DOE is publishing this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) to consider establishing energy
conservation standards for these products and to announce a public
meeting to receive comments on a variety of issues.
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on December 13, 2007, starting at
9 a.m. in Washington, DC. DOE must receive requests to speak at the
public meeting no later than 4 p.m., November 29, 2007. DOE must
receive a signed original and an electronic copy of statements to be
given at the public meeting no later than 4 p.m., December 6, 2007.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the ANOPR
before or after the public meeting, but no later than January 29, 2008.
See section IV, ``Public Participation,'' of this ANOPR for details.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Capital,
550 C Street, SW., DC 20024.
Any comments submitted must identify the ANOPR for Home Appliance
Products, and provide the docket number EE-2006-STD-0127 and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AB49. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: home_appliance.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include the
docket number EE-2006-STD-0127 and/or RIN 1904-AB49 in the subject line
of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper
original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-
2945. Please submit one signed paper original.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of this document
(Public Participation).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-
2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone
number for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room.
Please note: DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room (Room 1E-190 at
the Forrestal Building) no longer houses rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121, (202) 586-7463. E-mail: stephen.witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto or Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-72, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-
9507. E-mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
Regarding the public meeting, Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-
2945. E-mail: Brenda.Edwards-Jones@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Purpose of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
B. Overview of the Analyses Performed
1. Engineering Analysis
2. Energy and Water Use Characterization
3. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
4. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
5. National Impact Analysis
C. Authority
D. Background
1. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dishwashers,
Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products; and Commercial Clothes Washers
2. Current Rulemaking Process
3. Analysis Process
4. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Issues
a. Joint Stakeholder Recommendations
b. Standby Power for Dishwashers and Cooking Products
5. Test Procedures
II. Analyses for the Four Appliance Products
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
a. Dishwashers
b. Dehumidifiers
c. Cooking Products
d. Commercial Clothes Washers
2. Market Assessment
3. Technology Assessment
a. Dishwashers
b. Dehumidifiers
c. Cooking Products
d. Commercial Clothes Washers
B. Screening Analysis
1. Purpose
a. Technological Feasibility
b. Practicability To Manufacture, Install, and Service
c. Adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product Availability
d. Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety
2. Design Options
a. Dishwashers
b. Dehumidifiers
c. Cooking Products
1. Cooktops and Ovens
2. Microwave Ovens
d. Commercial Clothes Washers
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Approach
2. Technologies Unable To Be Included in the Engineering
Analysis
3. Product Classes, Baseline Models, and Efficiency Levels
Analyzed
a. Dishwashers
b. Dehumidifiers
c. Cooking Products
d. Commercial Clothes Washers
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
a. Dishwashers
b. Dehumidifiers
c. Cooking Products
d. Commercial Clothes Washers
D. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
[[Page 64433]]
1. Dishwashers
2. Dehumidifiers
3. Cooking Products
a. Cooktops and Ovens
b. Microwave Ovens
4. Commercial Clothes Washers
E. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
1. Distribution Channels
2. Approach for Manufacturer Markups
3. Approach for Retailer and Distributor Markups
4. Sales Taxes
5. Summary of Markups
F. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
1. Approach Taken in the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
a. Total Installed Cost Inputs
b. Operating Cost Inputs
c. Effective Date
d. Equipment Assignment for the Base Case
3. Payback Period Inputs
4. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results
H. Shipments Analysis
1. Shipments Model
2. Data Inputs
3. Shipments Forecasts
I. National Impact Analysis
1. Approach
2. Base Case and Standards Case Forecasted Efficiencies
3. National Impact Analysis Inputs
4. National Impact Analysis Results
J. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis
K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Sources of Information for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis
2. Industry Cash Flow Analysis
3. Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis
4. Competitive Impacts Assessment
5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
6. Preliminary Results for the Manufacturer Impact Analysis
L. Utility Impact Analysis
M. Employment Impact Analysis
N. Environmental Assessment
O. Regulatory Impact Analysis
III. Candidate Energy Conservation Standard Levels
IV. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To Speak
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which the Department of Energy Seeks Comment
1. Microwave Oven Standby Power
2. Product Classes
3. Commercial Clothes Washer Horizontal Axis Designs
4. Compact Dishwashers
5. Microwave Oven Design Options
6. Technologies Unable To Be Analyzed and Exempted Product
Classes
7. Dishwasher Efficiency and Its Impact on Cleaning Performance
8. Dehumidifier Use
9. Commercial Clothes Washer Per-Cycle Energy Consumption
10. Commercial Clothes Washer Consumer Prices
11. Repair and Maintenance Costs
12. Efficiency Distributions in the Base Case
13. Commercial Clothes Washer Shipments Forecasts
14. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies
15. Dehumidifier Cost and Efficiency Relationships
16. Trial Standard Levels
V. Regulatory Review and Procedural Requirements
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Purpose of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The purpose of this ANOPR is to provide interested persons with an
opportunity to comment on:
1. The product classes that the Department of Energy (DOE) is
planning to analyze in this rulemaking;
2. The analytical framework, models, and tools (e.g., life-cycle
cost (LCC) and national energy savings (NES) spreadsheets) DOE is using
in performing analyses of the impacts of energy conservation standards
for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, cooking products, and
commercial clothes washers (CCWs) (collectively referred to in this
ANOPR as ``the four appliance products'');
3. The analyses performed for the ANOPR, including in particular
the results of the engineering analyses, the LCC and payback period
(PBP) analyses, and the NES and national impact analyses, which are
presented in the ANOPR Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy
Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products and Commercial and
Industrial Equipment: Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, And
Cooking Products And Commercial Clothes Washers, \1\ as summarized in
this ANOPR (2007 TSD); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be published on the DOE Web site at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products.html_____________________________________-
_-
4. The candidate energy conservation standard levels that DOE has
developed from these analyses.
B. Overview of the Analyses Performed
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.)
directs DOE to consider establishing or amending energy conservation
standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial
equipment, including the four appliance products which are the subject
of this ANOPR. For each of these products, DOE conducted in-depth
technical analyses for this ANOPR in the following areas: (1)
Engineering, (2) energy and water use characterization, (3) markups to
determine equipment price, (4) LCC and PBP, (5) shipments, (6) national
impacts, and (7) preliminary manufacturer impacts. The ANOPR presents a
discussion of the methodologies and assumptions utilized in these
analyses. For each type of analysis, Table I.1 identifies the sections
in this document that contain the results of the analysis, and
summarizes the methodologies, key inputs, and assumptions for the
analysis. DOE consulted with interested parties in developing these
analyses, and invites further input from stakeholders on these topics.
Obtaining that input is the purpose of this ANOPR. Thus, it should be
noted that the analytical results presented here are subject to
revision following review and input from stakeholders and other
interested parties. The final rule will contain the final analytical
results.
[[Page 64434]]
Table I.1.--In-Depth Technical Analyses Conducted for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOPR section for
Analysis area Methodology Key inputs Key assumptions results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering (TSD Chapter 5):
Dishwashers............... Efficiency level Component cost Analysis can be Section II.C.3.
Dehumidifiers............. approach data; extended in
supplemented Performance subsequent
with design values. analyses to
option analysis. product classes
and efficiency
levels for which
the Association
of Home Appliance
Manufacturers
(AHAM) did not
provide data.
Cooking Products.......... ................. ................. Historical data
from DOE's 1996
analysis on
residential
cooking products
are still
representative of
current
manufacturing
costs.
Commercial Clothes Washers ................. ................. Analysis can be
extended to
energy and water
efficiency levels
for which AHAM
did not provide
data.
Energy and Water Use
Characterization
(TSD Chapter 6):
Dishwashers............... Establish per- Per-cycle energy Per-cycle water Section II.D.1.
cycle energy and and water use; use is a direct
water use and Average annual function of per-
then multiply by usage of 215 cycle energy use
annual cycles. cycles based on (based on AHAM
DOE test data).
procedure;
Variability of
usage based on
Energy
Information
Administration
(EIA)'s
Residential
Energy
Consumption
Survey (RECS).
Dehumidifiers............. Establish daily Per-cycle energy Average usage of Section II.D.2.
energy use by and water use; 1095 hours is
dividing product Average annual representative of
capacity by usage of 1095 dehumidifier use.
efficiency and hours based on
then multiply by AHAM estimates;
annual hourly Variability of
usage. usage based on
multiple sources.
Cooking Products.......... Use recent survey Recent survey Recent survey data Section II.D.3.
data to estimate data from are indicative of
annual energy California and current household
use. Florida--indicat cooking habits;
es a drop in Historical data
annual energy from DOE's 1996
use of ~40% for analysis on
electric and gas residential
ranges and ~15% cooking products
for microwave are still
ovens relative representative of
to DOE test component energy
procedure use (e.g., self-
estimates; cleaning, clock,
Variability of ignition).
usage based on
EIA's RECS.
Commercial Clothes Washers Establish per- Per-cycle energy Per-cycle energy Section II.D.4.
cycle energy and and water use; use data in DOE's
water use and Average daily 2000 TSD on
then multiply by usage of 3.4 residential
annual cycles. cycles for multi- clothes washers
family and 6 is representative
cycles for of per-cycle
laundromats; drying and per-
Variability of cycle machine
usage based on energy for
multiple sources. commercial
washers.
Markups to Determine
Equipment Price
(TSD Chapter 7):
Dishwashers............... Assess financial Distribution Markups for Section II.E.
Dehumidifiers............. data from: (1) channels; SEC baseline and more-
Cooking Products.......... U.S. Securities reports on efficient
Commercial Clothes Washers and Exchange appliance equipment are
Commission (SEC) manufacturers; different.
reports on U.S. Census
appliance Business
manufacturers to Expenditure
develop Survey; State
manufacturer sales taxes;
markups and (2) Shipments to
the U.S. Census different States.
Business
Expenditure
Survey to
develop retailer
and commercial
distributor
markups. Use
markups to
transform
manufacturer
costs into
consumer prices.
[[Page 64435]]
LCC and PBP
(TSD Chapter 8):
Dishwashers............... Use Monte Carlo Manufacturer Only 3% of II.G.4
simulation in costs; Markups consumers
combination with (including sales purchase
inputs that are taxes); dishwashers at
characterized Installation existing minimum
with probability costs; Annual standards (based
distributions to energy (and on AHAM data);
establish a water) Standards do not
distribution of consumption; impact repair and
consumer Energy (and maintenance
economic impacts water) prices costs; AEO2007
(i.e., LCC and future basis for energy
savings and trends; price forecasts;
PBPs) that Maintenance and Average product
identify the repair costs; lifetime is 12.3
percent of. Product years; Average
lifetime; discount rate is
Discount rates. 5.6%.
Dehumidifiers............. ................. ................. Approximately 30%
of consumers
purchase
dehumidifiers at
existing minimum
standards (based
on AHAM data);
Standards do not
impact repair and
maintenance
costs; Annual
Energy Outlook
(AEO) 2007 basis
for energy price
forecasts;
Average product
lifetime is 11
years; Average
discount rate is
5.6%.
Cooking Products.......... ................. ................. For gas ranges,
only 18 percent
of consumers
purchase
equipment with
standing pilots;
For electric
cooking products
and microwave
ovens, 100
percent of
consumer purchase
equipment at
baseline levels;
Average product
lifetime is 19
years for
electric and gas
ranges and 9
years for
microwave ovens;
Standards do not
impact repair and
maintenance
costs; AEO2007
basis for energy
price forecasts;
Average discount
rate is 5.6%.
Commercial Clothes Washers ................. ................. Approximately 80
percent of
consumers
purchase
equipment at
existing minimum
standards (based
on AHAM data);
Standards do not
impact repair and
maintenance
costs; AEO2007
basis for energy
price forecasts;
Average product
lifetime is 7.1
or 11.3 years
depending on
product
application;
Discount rate can
be estimated by
company-weighted
average cost of
capital.
Shipments (TSD Chapter 9):
[[Page 64436]]
Dishwashers............... Forecast Historical Market segments II.H.3.
Dehumidifiers............. shipments shipments (for are: new
Cooking Products.......... through the use calibration construction,
Commercial Clothes Washers of a product purposes); replacements, and
stock accounting Historical first-time owners
model by product (existing
dividing market saturations; New households
into segments-- construction without the
e.g., new forecasts; product);
construction, Survival Sensitivity to
replacements, functions (based `relative price'
and early on product is low.
replacements, or lifetimes); Market segments
first-time Sensitivity to are: replacements
owners; Use `relative and first-time
increases in price,' i.e., owners;
purchase price sensitivity to Sensitivity to
and savings in the combined `relative price'
operating costs effect of is low.
to forecast the purchase price Market segments
impact of increases, are: new
standards on operating cost construction,
shipments. savings, and replacements, and
household income. early
replacements;
Sensitivity to
`relative price'
is low.
Market segments
are: new
construction and
replacements; New
construction
shipments driven
by multi-family
housing market
only; Sensitivity
to `relative
price' is low.
National Impacts
(TSD Chapter 10):
Dishwashers............... Forecast national Annual forecasted Annual shipments Section II.I.4.
Dehumidifiers............. annual energy shipments; from shipments
Cooking Products.......... (and water) use, Forecasted base model; Forecasted
Commercial Clothes national annual case and base case and
Washers.. equipment costs, standards case standards case
and national efficiencies; efficiencies
annual operating Per-unit annual remain frozen at
cost savings. energy (and levels in the
water) year 2012;
consumption, Per- National Energy
unit total Modeling System
installed costs; (NEMS) basis for
Per-unit site-to-source
operating costs; conversion
Site-to-source factors; Discount
conversion rates are 3
factors for percent and 7
electricity and percent real
natural gas; based on Office
Discount rates; of Management and
Effective date Budget (OMB)
of standard; and guidelines;
Present year. Future costs
discounted to
present year:
2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the
cost and efficiency of a product DOE is evaluating for standards. This
relationship serves as the basis for cost and benefit calculations for
individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. The engineering
analysis identifies representative baseline equipment, which is the
starting point for analyzing technologies that provide energy
efficiency improvements. Baseline equipment here refers to a model or
models having features and technologies typically found in equipment
currently offered for sale. The baseline model in each product class
represents the characteristics of products in that class, and, for
products already subject to energy conservation standards, usually is a
model that just meets the current standard. After identifying the
baseline models, DOE estimates their manufacturing cost, after which,
DOE estimates the incremental manufacturing costs for producing more
efficient equipment.
For dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and CCWs, the engineering analysis
uses industry-supplied cost-efficiency data, which are based on an
efficiency-level approach (which calculates the relative costs of
achieving increases in energy efficiency levels), and cost-efficiency
curves that DOE derived based on a design-option approach (which
calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design options to a
baseline model). For kitchen ranges and ovens (including microwave
ovens), DOE established cost-efficiency curves using its 1996 Technical
Support Document for Residential Cooking Products,\2\ updated to the
present time in the 2007 TSD for this rulemaking, as discussed below.
Some stakeholders provided comments to DOE that the design options and
associated efficiency increments were still valid for cooking products
other than microwave ovens. For microwave ovens, DOE analyzed current
efficiency data to validate the efficiency increments specified in the
1996 technical analysis, after which it was determined that no changes
to those increments were necessary. To determine manufacturing cost
increments, DOE, with the concurrence of manufacturers, used producer
price index (PPI) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to
scale costs identified in the 1996 analysis to 2006$. Section II.C on
the engineering analysis discusses this cost-efficiency relationship,
as well as the product
[[Page 64437]]
classes analyzed, the representative baseline units, and the
methodology to be used to extend the analysis to product classes for
which DOE did not receive data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available online at DOE's website: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products_0998_r.html
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Energy and Water Use Characterization
The energy use and water characterization provides estimates of
annual energy and water consumption for the four appliance products,
which DOE uses in the subsequent LCC and PBP analyses and the national
impact analysis (NIA). DOE developed energy consumption estimates for
all of the product classes analyzed in the engineering analysis, as the
basis for its energy and water use estimates. In the case of
dishwashers, DOE used the annual usage (in cycles per year) established
in its test procedure to estimate the product's annual energy and water
use. For dehumidifiers, DOE relied on industry-supplied estimates of
annual usage (in hours per year) to estimate the product's annual
energy use. For kitchen ranges and ovens, the 2004 California
Residential Appliance Saturation Study (CA RASS) \3\ and a year-long
monitoring study conducted in 1999 by the Florida Solar Energy Center
(FSEC) \4\ indicate that household cooking has continued to drop since
the mid-1990s; DOE used these surveys as the basis for estimating
product annual energy use. For CCWs, DOE used industry-sponsored
research to estimate the product's annual energy and water use. For
further details on the CCW estimates, see section II.D.4 of this ANOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ California Energy Commission. California Statewide
Residential Appliance Saturation Study, June 2004. Prepared for the
California Energy Commission by KEMA-XENERY, Itron, and RoperASW.
Contract No. 400-04-009. http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/index.html
.
\4\ Parker, D. S. Research Highlights from a Large Scale
Residential Monitoring Study in a Hot Climate. Proceeding of
International Symposium on Highly Efficient Use of Energy and
Reduction of its Environmental Impact, January 2002. Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science Research for the Future Program, Osaka,
Japan. JPS-RFTF97P01002: pp. 108-116. Also published as FSEC-PF369-
02, Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-369-02/index.htm
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
DOE derives consumer prices for products based on manufacturer
markups, retailer markups (for residential products), distributor
markups (for CCWs), and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE has
determined: (1) The distribution channels for product sales; (2) the
markup associated with each party in the distribution channels, and (3)
the existence and magnitude of differences between markups for baseline
equipment (``baseline markups'') and for more-efficient equipment
(``incremental markups''). DOE calculates both overall baseline and
overall incremental markups based on the product markups at each step
in the distribution channel. It defines the overall baseline markup as
the ratio of consumer price (not including sales tax) and manufacturer
cost for baseline equipment; the overall incremental markup relates the
change in the manufacturer sales price of higher-efficiency models (the
incremental cost increase) to the change in the retailer or distributor
sales price. DOE determined manufacturer markups through the use of
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reports on appliance
manufacturers, and used U.S. Census Business Expenditure Surveys to
develop retailer and commercial distributor markups. DOE collected
consumer retail prices for each of the four appliance products to
provide a rough validation of its markups for baseline equipment.
Baseline equipment is produced in large volumes, is not heavily laden
with consumer features, and is typically competitively priced by
retailers and distributors; therefore, collected retail prices of
baseline equipment are likely to reflect the actual cost of producing
and selling minimally-compliant products.
Because DOE's approach for calculating baseline retail prices
through the use of manufacturing costs, baseline markups, and sales
taxes are intended to capture only the cost of producing minimally-
compliant equipment, any collected baseline retail prices serve as a
good check on the prices calculated through the markup approach. But
because more-efficient equipment often includes non-energy related
features, DOE cannot rely solely on collected retail prices for high-
efficiency products to validate the prices determined through its
markup approach. Current retail prices for high-efficiency equipment
likely reflect the added cost of consumer amenities that have no impact
on efficiency and, therefore, mask the incremental price associated
with features that only affect product efficiency.
4. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
The LCC and PBP analyses determine the economic impact of potential
standards on individual consumers. The LCC is the total consumer
expense for a product over the life of the product. The LCC analysis
compares the LCCs of products designed to meet possible energy-
efficiency standards with the LCCs of the products likely to be
installed in the absence of standards. DOE determines LCCs by
considering: (1) Total installed cost to the purchaser (which consists
of manufacturer costs, sales taxes, distribution chain markups, and
installation cost); (2) the operating expenses of the product
(determined by energy and water use, energy and water prices, and
repair and maintenance costs); (3) product lifetime; and (4) a discount
rate that reflects the real consumer cost of capital and puts the LCC
in present value terms.
The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover the
increase in purchase price (including the incremental installation
cost) of more-efficient equipment through savings in the operating cost
of the product. It is the change in total installed cost due to
increased efficiency divided by the change in annual operating cost
from increased efficiency.
5. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates both the national energy savings (NES) and the
net present value (NPV) of total customer costs and savings expected to
result from new standards at specific efficiency levels (referred to as
candidate standard levels). In conducting the NIA, DOE calculated NES
and NPV for any given candidate standard level for each of the four
appliance products as the difference between a base case forecast
(without new standards) and the standards case forecast (with
standards). DOE determined national annual energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units in use (by vintage \5\) by the average
unit energy (and water) consumption (also by vintage). Cumulative
energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined over a
specified time period, which in the NIA consisted of the range of years
for which the forecast was made. The national NPV is the sum over time
of the discounted net savings each year, which consists of the
difference between total operating cost savings and increases in total
installed costs. Critical inputs to this analysis include shipments
projections, retirement rates (based on estimated product or equipment
lifetimes), and estimates of changes in shipments and retirement rates
in response to changes in product or equipment costs due to standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term ``vintage'' refers to the age of the unit in years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64438]]
C. Authority
Part B of Title III of EPCA established the energy conservation
program for consumer products other than automobiles, including
dishwashers and electric and gas kitchen ranges and ovens (which
include microwave ovens). (This ANOPR refers to electric and gas
kitchen ranges and ovens and microwave ovens collectively as ``cooking
products.'') Amendments to EPCA in the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-12; NAECA) established energy
conservation standards for dishwashers and cooking products, as well as
requirements for determining whether these standards should be amended.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6295(g) and (h), respectively) Subsequent amendments
expanded Title III of EPCA to include additional consumer products and
certain commercial and industrial equipment, including dehumidifiers
and CCWs. In particular, sections 135(c)(4) and 136(e) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58; (EPACT 2005) amended EPCA to
authorize DOE to consider the need to modify the energy conservation
standards that the Act, as amended, prescribed for dehumidifiers (42
U.S.C. 6295(cc)) and for CCWs (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)), respectively. This
includes authority for DOE to amend the water efficiency standard the
Act, as amended, prescribes for commercial clothes washers.
Before DOE prescribes any new or amended standard for any of the
four appliance products, however, it must first solicit comments on a
proposed standard. Moreover, DOE must design each new or amended
standard for these products to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically
justified, and such a standard must also result in significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a)) To determine whether a proposed standard is economically
justified, DOE must, after receiving comments on the proposed standard,
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to
the greatest extent practicable, weighing the following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of products subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products 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 result from the
imposition of the standard;
6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
D. Background
1. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dishwashers,
Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products; and Commercial Clothes Washers
For dishwashers, NAECA amended EPCA to establish prescriptive
standards, requiring that dishwashers be equipped with an option to dry
without heat, and further requiring that DOE conduct two cycles of
rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295 (g)(1) and (4)) On May 14, 1991, DOE issued a final rule
establishing the first set of performance standards for dishwashers (56
FR 22250); the new standards became effective on May 14, 1994 (10 CFR
430.32(f)). DOE initiated a second standards rulemaking for dishwashers
by issuing an ANOPR on November 14, 1994 (59 FR 56423). However, as a
result of the priority-setting process outlined in its Procedures for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products (the ``Process Rule'') (61 FR 36974 (July 15, 1996);
10 CFR part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A), DOE suspended the standards
rulemaking for dishwashers.
Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 added dehumidifiers as products
covered under EPCA and established standards for them that will become
effective on October 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) DOE has incorporated
these standards into its regulations (70 FR 60407, 60414 (October 18,
2005); 10 CFR 430.32(v)). The amendments to EPCA also require that DOE
issue a final rule by October 1, 2009, to determine whether these
standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)) If amended standards
are justified, they must become effective by October 1, 2012. (Id.) In
the event that DOE fails to publish such a final rule, the EPACT 2005
specifies a new set of amended standards with an effective date of
October 1, 2012. (Id.)
As with dishwashers, NAECA amended EPCA to establish prescriptive
standards for 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, and requiring
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)) DOE initially analyzed standards for cooking products
as part of an eight-product standards rulemaking. It issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on March 4, 1994, proposing performance
standards for gas and electric residential cooking products, including
microwave ovens (59 FR 10464). In accordance with the Process Rule, DOE
refined its standards analysis for cooking products. For gas cooking
products, DOE focused on the economic justification for eliminating
constant burning pilots. Partially due to the difficulty of
conclusively demonstrating that elimination of constant burning pilots
was economically justified for gas cooking products without an
electrical supply cord, DOE issued a final rule on September 8, 1998,
that covered only electric cooking products, including microwave ovens
(63 FR 48038). The final rule found that no standards were justified
for electric cooking products. DOE never completed its standards
rulemaking for gas cooking products.
Similar to dehumidifiers, EPACT 2005 included amendments to EPCA
that added CCWs as covered equipment, and it also established standards
for such equipment that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2007.
(EPACT 2005, section 136(a) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6311(1) and 6313(e)) DOE
has incorporated these standards into its regulations (70 FR 60407,
60416 (October 18, 2005); 10 CFR 431.156). EPACT 2005 also requires
that DOE issue a final rule by January 1, 2010, to determine whether
these standards should be amended. (EPACT 2005, section 136(e); 42
U.S.C. 6313(e))
2. Current Rulemaking Process
To initiate the current rulemaking to develop standards for the
four appliance products, on March 15, 2006, DOE published on its Web
site the Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and
Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products (the
Framework
[[Page 64439]]
Document). The Framework Document describes the procedural and analytic
approaches DOE anticipates using to evaluate the establishment of
energy conservation standards for these products. This document is
available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/home_appl_framework_31506.pdf
.
DOE subsequently published a notice announcing the availability of
the Framework Document, inviting written public comments to be
submitted by May 11, 2006, and announcing a public meeting to discuss
the proposed analytical framework for this rulemaking (71 FR 15059
(March 27, 2006)). At the April 27, 2006 public meeting, DOE described
the different analyses it would conduct, such as the LCC and PBP
analyses, the methods proposed for conducting them, and the
relationship among the various analyses. Manufacturers, trade
associations, environmental advocates, regulators, and other interested
parties attended the meeting. The major issues discussed at the public
meeting were: (1) Relevance of the existing DOE test procedure for
microwave ovens; (2) baseline unit definitions for the four appliance
products; (3) product classes for the four appliance products; (4)
consideration of limiting standby power as a design option for all four
appliance products; (5) technology options for improving efficiency for
all four appliance products; (6) type of approach to employ for the
engineering analysis; (7) efficiency levels to consider for all four
appliance products; (8) inclusion of a water factor for dishwashers;
(9) consideration of cleaning performance in setting dishwasher
standards; (10) implications of clothes container volume on CCW
efficiency; (11) proposed approaches for specifying typical annual
energy and water consumption for all four products; (12) potential data
sources for characterizing variability in annual energy and water
consumption; (13) typical distribution channels and markups for all
four appliance products; (14) data sources for retail prices; (15) type
of approach to employ for the LCC and PBP analyses; (16) variability of
forecasted energy and water prices; (17) repair, maintenance, and
installation cost relationship to product efficiency; (18) product
lifetimes; (19) development of consumer discount rates; (20) purchase
price impacts on product shipments; (21) forecasted saturation rates of
commercial clothes washers; (22) consumer subgroups; (23) water and
wastewater utility impacts; and (24) wastewater discharge impacts.
Written comments submitted during the Framework Document comment
period elaborated on the issues raised at the meeting and also
addressed other major issues, including the following: (1) Transparency
of manufacturer cost data development; (2) engineering data
availability for dishwashers, kitchen ranges and ovens, and CCWs; and
(3) inclusion of embedded energy in supplying water and treating
wastewater.
DOE developed two spreadsheet tools for this rulemaking. The first
tool calculates LCC and PBPs. There are six LCC spreadsheets, one each
for the following products: (1) Dishwashers, (2) dehumidifiers, (3)
cooktops, (4) ovens, (5) microwave ovens, and (6) CCWs. Each of the LCC
spreadsheets includes product efficiency distributions and has the
capability to determine LCC savings and PBPs based on average values.
The spreadsheets also can be combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially
available software program) to generate a Monte Carlo simulation, which
incorporates uncertainty and variability considerations. The second
tool (the NIA spreadsheet tool) calculates the impacts of candidate
standards at various levels on shipments and calculates the NES and NPV
at various candidate standard levels. There are five NIA spreadsheets,
one each for the following products and combinations of products: (1)
Dishwashers, (2) dehumidifiers, (3) cooktops and ovens, (4) microwave
ovens, and (5) CCWs. DOE posted these spreadsheets on its Web site on
December 4, 2006, for early stakeholder review and comment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available online at DOE's Web site: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products.html_____________________________________-
A>
Comments received since publication of the Framework Document have
helped identify issues involved in this rulemaking, and have provided
information that has contributed to DOE's proposed resolution of these
issues. This ANOPR quotes and summarizes many of these public comments.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the public record.
3. Analysis Process
Table I.2 sets forth the analyses DOE has conducted and intends to
conduct in its evaluation of standards for CCWs, and residential
dishwashers, cooking products, and dehumidifiers. Until recently, DOE
performed the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) in its entirety
between the ANOPR and NOPR during energy conservation standards
rulemakings. As noted in the table, however, DOE has performed a
preliminary MIA for this ANOPR. DOE believes this change will improve
the rulemaking process.
Table I.2.--The Four Appliance Products--Analysis Process
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOPR NOPR Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market and technology Revised ANOPR Revised analyses.
assessment. analyses.
Screening analysis........... Life-cycle cost
sub-group
analysis.
Engineering analysis......... Manufacturer
impact
analysis.
Energy use and end-use load Utility impact
characterization. analysis.
Markups for equipment price Net national
determination. employment
impacts.
Life-cycle cost and payback Environmental
period analyses. assessment.
Shipments analysis........... Regulatory
impact
analysis.
National impact analysis.....
Preliminary manufacturer
impact analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analyses listed in Table I.2 reflect analyses used in the
rulemaking, including the development of economic models and analytical
tools. In addition, in an effort to support groups of interested
parties seeking to develop and present consensus recommendations on
standards, DOE posted draft versions of its LCC and NIA spreadsheets on
its Web site. If timely new data, models, or tools that enhance the
development of standards become
[[Page 64440]]
available, DOE will incorporate them into this rulemaking.
4. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Issues
a. Joint Stakeholder Recommendations
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) suggested that DOE should use a
negotiated rulemaking process for residential dishwashers and cooking
equipment, because manufacturers appear to want regulatory certainty
for these products. EEI suggested a separate negotiated process for
CCWs because these products are designed for a different market. For
dehumidifiers, EEI suggested DOE analyze the standards identified in
EPACT 2005 that are due to become effective in 2012, and if they are
technically feasible, economically justified, and will not reduce
competition, consider a negotiated rulemaking so that standards can be
issued before the October 1, 2009 deadline mandated by EPACT 2005.
(EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A notation in the form ``EEI, No. 7, p. 2'' identifies a
written comment that DOE has received and has included in the docket
of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a comment (1)
by the Edison Electric Institute, (2) in document number 7 in the
docket of this rulemaking, and (3) appearing on page 2 of document
number 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Process Rule specifically identifies ``consensus proposals for
new or revised standards as an effective mechanism for balancing the
economic, energy, and environmental interests affected by standards.
Thus, notwithstanding any other policy on selection of proposed
standards, a consensus recommendation on an updated efficiency level
submitted by a group that represents all interested parties will be
proposed by DOE if it is determined to meet the statutory criteria.''
(10 CFR Part 430, Appendix A to Subpart C, section 5(e)(2)). Therefore,
DOE encourages the submittal of any consensus proposals or joint
stakeholder recommendations pertaining to any or all of the four
appliance products. If the supporting analyses provided by the group
address all of the statutory criteria and use valid economic
assumptions and analytical methods, DOE expects to use these supporting
analyses as the basis of a proposed rule.
b. Standby Power for Dishwashers and Cooking Products
Standby power is currently incorporated into the energy factor \8\
(EF) for conventional ovens via the measurement of clock power
consumption and for gas cooktops via the energy consumption of constant
burning pilots, both of which are incorporated into the EF calculation
for their respective products. The dishwasher test procedure includes a
measurement of standby power, but standby energy use is not
incorporated into calculated EF. The issue of whether to include
standby power in the energy efficiency metrics for dishwashers and
cooking products was addressed in several comments that DOE received.
The Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural
Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
(hereafter ``Joint Comment'') stated that standby energy use should be
included in the analyses for all products, with the appropriate metric
for the standards being annual energy consumption rather than energy
factor. The Joint Comment stated that EPACT 2005 instructs DOE to
consider standby power in its rulemaking for all products, and where
significant, to include standby power in some fashion into the
appropriate standard. The Joint Comment further stated that standby
energy use can be significant for clothes washers, dishwashers, and
microwave ovens. (Joint Comment, No. 9 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Energy factor (EF) is a measure of the energy consumption
required by the product under the conditions of the DOE test
procedure. The units of EF vary depending on the product. For
example, the EF for dishwashers is expressed in cycles/kWh, while
the EF for dehumidifiers is in liters/kWh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For dishwashers, Potomac Resources Inc. (Potomac) commented that it
would be useful to address standby power directly through design
options such as the power supply. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at
p. 61) \9\ ACEEE, EEI, and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) agreed
that standby power is important to include in the energy use
calculations, but EEI and Whirlpool argued that individual system
components should not be regulated, instead stating that standby power
should be addressed for the system as a whole. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 62, 64, and 66) ACEEE commented that if
standby energy use is determined to be significant, then DOE's analysis
should include design options, efficiency levels, or increased annual
energy consumption to capture efficiency improvement opportunities.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 64) ACEEE, the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), and Whirlpool stated that if DOE
incorporates standby power into the efficiency standard, it should do
this through maximum annual energy usage rather than a prescriptive
standby power level. These commenters argued that such an approach
would allow manufacturers flexibility in meeting the standard. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 125; AHAM, No. 14 at p. 8; Whirlpool,
No. 10 at p. 8) Whirlpool further commented that if standby power is
included in annual energy consumption, DOE should add 8.5 kilowatt-
hours (kWh) to the standard, equating to one watt standby power per
covered appliance over the course of a year. In addition, Whirlpool
argued that standby power should not be driven so low that it impacts
the adoption of electronics that can shift start times to off-peak
periods. (Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A notation in the form ``Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at
p. 61'' identifies an oral comment that DOE received during the
April 27, 2006, Framework public meeting and which was recorded in
the public meeting transcript in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0127), maintained in the Resource Room of
the Building Technologies Program. This particular notation refers
to a comment (1) made during the public meeting, (2) recorded in
document number 5, which is the public meeting transcript that is
filed in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) which appears on
pages 61 of document number 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the comments, we note that the analysis DOE
conducted for dishwashers does not explicitly consider design options
to reduce standby energy consumption. DOE conducted the engineering
analysis to capture the costs associated with improving EF only. The
cost data AHAM provided and the product teardowns did not specifically
account for changes in standby power. The LCC analysis, however, does
account for standby power in the calculation of annual energy
consumption. The LCC assumes a baseline standby power draw of two
watts, totaling 17 kWh of annual energy consumption. DOE assumes this
same consumption level at all EF values. If technologies to decrease
standby power consumption are determined to be a significant source of
energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically
justified, DOE plans to consider standby power as part of an overall
energy efficiency standard focusing on maximum annual energy usage,
rather than a separate standby power level, in order to allow
manufacturers maximum flexibility in specifying features and design
options while still remaining below a certain annual energy consumption
level. As one approach, DOE tentatively believes that a reduction in
the two-watt baseline standby power level could be reflected in a
corresponding reduction in annual energy usage, which could be modeled
for the purposes of this analysis as an equivalent change in EF. DOE
seeks comment on the specification of annual energy usage as the metric
for dishwasher standards.
[[Page 64441]]
ACEEE commented during the Framework public meeting that the use of
standby power needs to be considered for all cooking products. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 91) AHAM recognized that standby power
consumption is essentially already included in the test procedure for
ovens and cooktops; however, for microwave ovens, a test procedure
revision would be required. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 92)
AHAM also stated that manufacturers (driven by consumer/market desires)
want the flexibility to produce microwave ovens with different
displays, and, thus, different levels of standby power consumption, in
order to provide products with market differentiation. Therefore, AHAM
recommended that standby power not be considered as a separate
prescriptive requirement, but instead, if regulated, standby power
should be incorporated in an annual energy consumption metric (AHAM,
No. 17 at p. 4). Contrary to these views, GE Consumer & Industrial (GE)
opposed incorporating standby power into efficiency standards because
that would result in a determination of higher energy consumption under
the regulation for ``intelligent'' appliances. (GE, No. 13 at p. 4)
DOE added low-standby-power electronic controls as design options
for both standard and self-cleaning gas ovens, as well as for both
standard and self-cleaning electric ovens. However, it did not include
these design options when setting overall efficiency levels for these
products because DOE does not have efficiency improvement or
incremental cost information on them. DOE is seeking data to conduct
this analysis and requests stakeholder comment on this issue.
AHAM provided data on microwave standby power for a sample of 21
microwave ovens available in the U.S. market. For the AHAM submission,
standby power was tested in accordance with International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301-2005, Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power. These data show a wide range
of standby power use. Microwave oven standby power consumption is
understood to be a function of the digital clock display, with more
complex graphical displays drawing more power. AHAM did not provide the
type of oven characteristics information which could provide more
insight into the factors affecting standby power or the costs
associated with reducing the standby energy consumption.
For the NOPR analysis, DOE is considering purchasing, testing, and
analyzing microwave ovens to better understand the utility, cost, and
cost implications of reducing standby power consumption. Addition of a
standby power test to the existing test procedure would be necessary
before standby power could be included in an efficiency standard. DOE
intends to modify the test procedure accordingly because it believes
that standby power represents a significant portion of microwave oven
annual energy usage. According to the DOE test procedure, the annual
useful cooking energy output of a microwave oven is 79.8 kWh. For a
baseline microwave oven with an efficiency of 55.7 percent, annual
energy consumption for cooking processes is 143.3 kWh. Each watt of
standby power represents an additional 8.76 kWh per year, or 6 percent
of the annual cooking energy consumption. AHAM-supplied data
demonstrated a wide variation in existing standby power levels, with
values ranging between 1.5 and 5.8 watts, such that the likely impact
of a standard would be significant. DOE will conduct testing and
teardown analysis in support of the test procedure NOPR to incorporate
standby power. DOE plans to complete the test procedure change prior to
publishing the NOPR for this standard-setting rulemaking.
DOE specifically seeks data and stakeholder feedback on how to
conduct an analysis of standby power for microwave ovens. This is
identified as Issue 1 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in
section IV.E of this ANOPR.
5. Test Procedures
A test procedure outlines the method to determine the energy
efficiency and annual energy use of products and equipment, and it is
used as the basis for representation and determination of compliance
with energy conservation standards. Section 7(b) of the Process Rule
provides that DOE will propose necessary modifications to the test
procedures for a product before issuing an ANOPR concerning energy
conservation standards for that product. Section 7(c) of the Process
Rule states that DOE will issue a final modified test procedure prior
to issuing a proposed rule for energy conservation standards.
DOE has established test procedures for each of the four appliance
products subject to today's notice. DOE last revised its test
procedures for cooking products in 1997, to make several revisions to
more accurately measure the efficiency of these products (62 FR 51976
(Oct. 3, 1997); 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix I). Similarly, in
2003, DOE revised its test procedures for dishwashers to more
accurately measure their efficiency, as well as their water use (68 FR
51887 (Aug. 29, 2003); 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix C). At this
time, DOE does not expect to make further changes to the dishwasher
test procedure.
EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to require that CCWs be rated according to
the same test procedures established for residential clothes washers.
(EPACT 2005, section 136(f); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) DOE adopted those
test procedures for CCWs in its final rule published on October 18,
2005 (70 FR 60407, 60416). EPACT 2005 also amended EPCA to specify that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) test criteria used under
the Energy Star Program must serve as the basis for DOE's test
procedure for dehumidifiers. (EPACT 2005, section 135(b); 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(13)) The Energy Star test criteria for dehumidifiers require
that American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AHAM Standard DH-1-
2003, Dehumidifiers, be used to measure energy use during capacity-
rating tests, and that the Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA)
standard CAN/CSA-C749-1994 (R2005), Performance of Dehumidifiers, be
used to calculate the energy factor. DOE has adopted these test
criteria, along with related definitions and tolerances, as its test
procedure for dehumidifiers (71 FR 71340, 71347, 71366, 713667-68 (Dec.
8, 2006); 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix X).
DOE received comments pertaining to its test procedures for kitchen
ranges and ovens and CCWs. With regard to kitchen ranges and ovens,
Wolf Appliance Company, LLC , an affiliate of Sub-Zero Freezer Company,
Inc. (Wolf), and Whirlpool suggested that DOE modify its test procedure
for residential kitchen ranges and ovens because it is inadequate for
measuring the energy use of certain product characteristics and
features. Specifically, Wolf stated that the current test procedure
does not accurately measure the performance and efficiency of several
components (such as larger burner rings, heavier burner grates, and
high performance convection systems). (Wolf, No. 6 at p. 1) Whirlpool
stated that the current test procedure does not measure energy
consumption as a function of oven cavity size, does not address the
fundamental differences in commercial-type products \10\ versus more
traditional residential cooking products, and does not recognize that
[[Page 64442]]
gas surface burner efficiency is a function of the burner rate.
Whirlpool added that the microwave oven test procedure does not account
for the variation in the product's size and wattage, both of which
affect microwave oven energy consumption. (Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 6)
With regard to CCWs, Whirlpool noted that commercial laundry practices
differ from the more familiar residential practices in several key
respects (e.g., the test procedure assumes that a modest eight-pound
load will be used, but commercial washers typically are filled with a
larger load). (Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Commercial-type cooktops and ovens are characterized by
higher burner firing rates, larger dimensions, and heavier
components than typical residential cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, DOE recognizes that there may be issues with its test
procedures for measuring the energy use impacts of the cooking product
characteristics noted by Wolf and Whirlpool. However, with the
exception of standby power consumption for microwave ovens, DOE does
not intend to initiate rulemakings to modify its test procedures for
appliances covered by this rulemaking, before finalizing amended energy
conservation standards, for the reasons that follow. DOE intends to
initiate a test procedure modification for microwave ovens to include
standby power consumption because the data received from AHAM indicates
that standby power represents a significant portion of annual energy
usage and because the data shows a wide spread in current standby power
levels. DOE does not plan a test procedure change for conventional
ovens because the oven test procedure already measures standby power in
the form of clock power and, for standard gas ovens, the pilot light.
For cooktops, DOE does not believe that standby power not already
captured in the test procedure represents a significant portion of
annual energy consumption. Gas cooktops already measure the energy
consumption of standing pilots, which for the baseline configuration
are assumed to consume 600 kWh annually and which are in addition to
the annual cooking energy consumption. In comparison, each watt of
standby power consumes 8.76 kWh annually. For electric cooktops, DOE
does not have any data on standby power consumption that indicate the
potential for significant energy savings. Therefore, a test procedure
change to measure standby power for cooktops would not be warranted.
With regard to CCWs, although for efficiency rating purposes CCWs use
the residential clothes washer test procedure, DOE's methods for
characterizing the energy and water use for commercial washers (as
described in section II.D.4) accounted for the consumer usage patterns
specific to this product.
DOE specifically seeks data and stakeholder feedback on the
decision to retain the existing test procedures for appliances covered
under this rulemaking other than microwave ovens. This is identified as
Issue 6 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.E of
this ANOPR.
II. Analyses for the Four Appliance Products
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed and intends
to perform for this rulemaking. For each product covered by this
rulemaking (i.e., residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking
products, and CCWs), DOE will perform a set of separate analyses,
including a market and technology assessment, a screening analysis, an
engineering analysis, an energy use and water use characterization, LCC
and PBP analyses, a shipments analysis, a NIA, and a MIA. A separate
sub-section addresses each type of analysis, which contains a general
introduction that describes the analysis and a discussion of related
comments received from interested parties.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
When DOE begins a standards rulemaking, it develops information
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the nature of the product, the industry structure,
and market characteristics for the product. This activity consists of
both quantitative and qualitative efforts based primarily on publicly
available information. The subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this rulemaking include product classes,
baseline units, technologies for design options, manufacturers,
quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale, retail
market trends, industry cost structure, and regulatory and non-
regulatory programs. This information serves as resource material
throughout the rulemaking.
1. Product Classes
In general, when evaluating and establishing energy efficiency
standards, DOE divides covered products into classes by: (1) The type
of energy used, and (2) capacity or other performance-related features
that affect consumer utility and efficiency. Different energy
conservation standards may apply to different product classes. The
following describes and discusses the product classes DOE plans to use
in this rulemaking.
a. Dishwashers
For dishwashers, the size of the unit significantly affects the
amount of energy consumed due to the corresponding amount of water
heating required. In other words, standard-sized dishwashers with
relatively greater water consumption have significantly greater energy
use than compact units. Because standard dishwashers offer enhanced
consumer utility over compact units (i.e., the ability to wash more
dishes), DOE has established the following product classes, which are
based on the size of the dishwasher (as specified in ANSI/AHAM Standard
DW-1-2005, Dishwashers):
Compact (capacity less than eight place settings plus six
serving pieces); and
Standard (capacity equal to or greater than eight place
settings plus six serving pieces).
AHAM and EEI both commented that the two product classes are
appropriate for the analysis. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p.
55; AHAM, No. 14 at p. 8; EEI, No. 7 at p. 3) Potomac, however,
suggested that the standard product class should be disaggregated to at
least several product classes based on place-setting capacity. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 61-62). American Rivers, Association
of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Austin Water Utility, California Urban
Water Conservation Council, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and
Seattle Public Utilities (hereafter ``Multiple Water Organizations'')
recommended that one or more new product classes be defined in addition
to compact and standard sizes, which would allow flexibility for
manufacturers to make smaller or larger machines. According to the
Multiple Water Organizations, consumers would then be encouraged to
wash full dishwasher loads rather than partial or multiple loads.
(Multiple Water Organizations, No. 11 at p. 2) DOE notes that current
dishwasher models include single- and two-drawer units as well as
dishwashers that provide a user-selectable option for upper-or lower-
rack-only washing to aid in running optimal load sizes. Therefore, DOE
believes the current two product classes offer adequate flexibility in
terms of dishwasher loading to maintain consumer utility and wash
performance for different load sizes. Thus, additional product classes
are not warranted.
b. Dehumidifiers
EPACT 2005 sets energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers
based on the capacity of the unit as measured in
[[Page 64443]]
pints of water extracted per day. (EPACT 2005, section 135(c); 42
U.S.C. 6295(cc)) Specifically, for units manufactured on or after
October 1, 2007, EPACT 2005 sets a separate standard for dehumidifiers
in each of the following five categories: (1) 25.00 pints/day or less,
(2) 25.01-35.00 pints/day, (3) 35.01-54.00 pints/day, (4) 54.01-74.99
pints/day, and (5) 75.00 pints/day or more. (Id.) EPACT 2005 also
prescribes more stringent energy conservation standards that would go
into effect if DOE fails to issue amended standards that apply to
products manufactured on or after October 1, 2012. (Id.) In prescribing
these standards, EPACT 2005 subdivides the 35.01-54.00 pints/day
category into two categories: 35.01-45.00 pints/day and 45.01-54.00
pints/day. Therefore, in accordance with EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA,
DOE is using the following product classes for dehumidifiers:
25.00 pints/day or less;
25.01-35.00 pints/day;
35.01-45.00 pints/day;
45.01-54.00 pints/day;
54.01-74.99 pints/day; and
75.00 pints/day or more.
During the Framework public meeting and Framework comment period,
stakeholders differed as to appropriate specifications for the product
classes for dehumidifiers. EEI asked whether a distinction should be
made between fixed and portable dehumidifers. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 3) AHAM
opposed EEI's suggestions, expressing a preference for the product
classes as identified in EPACT 2005. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5
at p. 70; AHAM, No. 14 at p. 9)
While fixed and portable dehumidifiers offer different utility in
terms of ease of installation and flexibility in location, DOE is
unaware of any dehumidification performance differences. Therefore, DOE
has determined that additional product classes are not warranted based
on portability, and for the purpose of this rulemaking, DOE intends to
maintain the dehumidifier product classes as defined by EPACT 2005
(i.e., a ``self-contained, electrically operated, and mechanically
encased assembly''). (EPACT 2005, section 135(a); 42 U.S.C. 6291(34))
DOE also received comments that baseline unit characteristics for
dehumidifiers may not be possible to establish since EPACT 2005 will
not come into effect until October 1, 2007. DOE performed its
engineering analysis across a wide range of unit capacities and
efficiencies to capture as complete a picture of the 25-75 pints/day
dehumidifier market as possible. In total, DOE has disassembled and
analyzed 14 dehumidifiers to date. Furthermore, DOE used market and
technology assessment research and consulted with numerous stakeholders
to determine basline unit characteristics. (Refer to Chapters 3 and 5
of the TSD for further details.) DOE intends to use EPACT 2005-
compliant dehumidifiers as a baseline since manufacturers are already
modifying any non-compliant product they have to meet this new minimum
energy efficiency level.
c. Cooking Products
For cooking products, DOE based its product classes on energy
source (i.e., gas or electric) and cooking method (i.e., cooktops,
ovens, and microwave ovens). DOE identified five categories of cooking
products:
Gas cooktops;
Electric cooktops;
Gas ovens;
Electric ovens; and
Microwave ovens.
In its regulations implementing EPCA, DOE defines a ``conventional
range'' as ``a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household
cooking appliance consisting of a conventional cooking top and one or
more conventional ovens.'' 10 CFR 430.2. In this rulemaking, DOE is not
treating gas and electric ranges as a distinct product category and is
not basing its product classes on that category. Because ranges consist
of both a cooktop and oven, any potential cooktop and oven standards
would apply to the individual components of the range. As a result,
product classes for ranges, for the purpose of standards-setting, are
not warranted.
This general approach for defining product classes was validated in
comments received after the Framework public meeting. EEI stated that
the product classes are appropriate. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 3) Wolf stated
that the burden of considering new product classes since the previous
rulemaking (including modification of existing test procedures) is not
justified by the small potential energy savings. (Wolf, No. 6 at p. 2)
DOE also received comments during the Framework public meeting and
subsequent comment period questioning whether DOE should consider for
analysis product classes for cooking products with small shipment
volumes. Whirlpool noted that the rationale for excluding certain
product classes from analysis in the previous rulemaking (e.g., grills,
griddles, induction cooktops, and warming/simmering burners) was based
upon consideration of factors such as the lack of an appropriate test
procedure, the niche nature of those products, and the small amount of
empirical data. Since these conditions still remain today, Whirlpool
commented that DOE should not analyze these classes. (Whirlpool, No. 10
at p. 5) Wolf stated during the Framework public meeting that product
classes that were not analyzed in the prior rulemaking need to be
considered in this standards rulemaking. (Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 5 at p. 84) DOE is not aware of any data upon which to determine
the measurement of energy efficiency or energy efficiency
characteristics of products in these niche classes. Therefore, DOE will
not conduct analyses on product classes that were identified but
excluded in the previous rulemaking. DOE seeks efficiency data and
inputs to characterize any limitations of the test procedure for these
product classes. This topic is identified as Issue 6 under ``Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.E of this ANOPR.
The single product class that DOE proposes to use for gas cooktops
is gas cooktops/conventional burners, in accordance with the previous
rulemaking.
AHAM commented that if DOE decides to proceed with further analysis
of cooking products, DOE should include an additional product class for
high-performance, commercial-style products. AHAM stated that the
unique utility and performance attributes associated with high-
performance cooking products must be recognized and allowed to continue
under the ``safe harbor'' provisions of NAECA, which prevent Federal
energy efficiency standards from resulting in the unavailability of
product types, classes, performance characteristics, and other key
aspects of the product that are currently available. (42 U.S.C. 6295
(o)(4)) Due to test procedure complexities and small market share, AHAM
recommends that DOE exempt high-performance, commercial-style
residential cooking products. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 2) DOE received
additional comments specifically regarding commercial-type ranges.
These comments are discussed in the context of gas cooktops, although
it should be recognized that similar responses apply to the oven
component of the range as well. During the Framework public meeting,
EEI suggested a need to establish the market share of commercial-type
ranges for this rulemaking. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 81)
Both AHAM and Wolf stated that commercial-type ranges warrant a
separate product class. (Public
[[Page 64444]]
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 84 and 86). Wolf further elaborated in
the comment period after the Framework public meeting that the unique
utility and performance attributes of commercial-type ranges (explained
below) justify a separate product class. (Wolf, No. 6 at p. 1) DOE
considers commercial-style ranges to be those products which
incorporate gas cooktops with higher input rate burners (i.e., greater
than 14,000 Btu/h) and heavy-duty grates that provide faster cooking
and the ability to cook larger quantities of food in larger cooking
vessels. The burners are optimized for the larger-scale cookware to
maintain high cooking performance. Similarly, DOE considers commercial-
style ovens to have higher input rates (i.e., greater than 22,500 Btu/
h) and dimensions to accommodate larger cooking utensils or greater
quantity of food items, as well as features to optimize cooking
performance. GE stated that commercial-type products should be exempt
from regulation due to their unique utility and cost, but if they are
regulated, they should be categorized into a separate product class.
(GE, No. 13 at p. 2) Whirlpool commented that, although shipments of
commercial-type products have increased since the prior rulemaking,
they still remain a niche product. Whirlpool shared GE's position that
these products should be exempt from regulation, particularly since
there is a lack of efficiency data available and there is little
potential for meaningful energy savings. (Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 6)
After considering stakeholder comments, DOE has tentatively decided
to exclude high-performance, commercial-style gas cooktops (including
the cooktop component of commercial-style ranges) from the energy
efficiency standard due to the lack of available data for determining
efficiency characteristics of those products. In addition, the test
procedure for gas cooktops is based on measuring temperature rise in an
aluminum block with a diameter dictated by the firing rate of the
burner. The maximum diameter of the test block is sufficient to measure
higher output residential-scale burners. For commercial-type burners
that must have larger diameter burner rings to accomplish complete
combustion, however, this maximum test block diameter may be too small
to achieve proper heat transfer and may not be representative of the
dimensions of suitable cookware. However, DOE is not aware of any data
to determine the measurement of energy efficiency or energy efficiency
characteristics for commercial-style cooktops. DOE seeks data and
inputs regarding the energy efficiency of commerical-type cooktops as
well as any limitations of the test procedure for this product class.
This topic is identified as Issue 6 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section IV.E of this ANOPR.
Whirlpool and AHAM commented that DOE should add sealed gas burners
as a separate product class. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at pp.
82 and 85) Whirlpool stated that the added utility of sealed burners
based upon the ease of consumer cleaning justifies this distinction. In
addition, the increasing firing rates of sealed burners since the
previous rulemaking coupled with the necessary grate height increase to
achieve proper combustion make sealed burners less efficient than open
burners. Whirlpool cited the 1983 International Gas Research Conference
(IGRC)\11\ report that claimed an efficiency reduction associated with
sealed burners. In Whirlpool's opinion, the boiling water tests upon
which this conclusion was based represented an inappropriate metric,
and any efficiency determination for sealed burners must be based on
the DOE test procedure. For these reasons, Whirlpool recommended
development of a separate product class for sealed burners. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 82-83 and 88) AHAM stated that gas
sealed burners should be considered as a separate product class within
gas cooktops because changes are required to provide appropriate
amounts of primary and secondary air for proper combustion, which
inherently affects energy efficiency. (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 2)
DOE has observed that there are conflicting data on the impacts of
sealed burners on energy efficiency measurements. In the previous
rulemaking, AHAM had stated that sealed burners often have a lower gas
input rating than conventional burners due to the reduction in
secondary air. The sealed burner must obtain all of its secondary air
from air that is available above the cooktop. To obtain sufficient air
for proper combustion, it becomes necessary to either raise the grate
height or to derate the burner. The IGRC report, however, states that
the reduction in secondary air results in more primary aeration to the
sealed burner. The increased primary aeration allows for a reduced pan-
to-burner separation and increased burner efficiency.
According to the boiling water tests conducted in the report, the
efficiency of conventional burners ranged from 42 percent to 48
percent, while the sealed burner was rated at an efficiency of 53
percent. Commenters have not provided data showing the correlation of
boiling water tests with efficiency testing according to the DOE test
procedure, as would render the IGRC report inapplicable. Accordingly,
without clear indication that the performance of sealed burners is
sufficiently distinct from that of conventional open gas burners, DOE
will retain the single product class for gas cooktops and consider
sealed burners as a design option within that class.
The American Gas Association (AGA) also proposed two product
classes for gas cooktops, differentiated by the method of heat transfer
associated with the burners. The two product classes suggested by the
AGA would consist of direct-flame contact burners that provide
conductive heat transfer and other burner types that employ convective
and radiant heat transfer. (AGA, No. 12 at p. 2) DOE believes that the
method of heat transfer does not provide any unique utility, nor are
there data available that characterize substantially different
performance based on heat transfer means. Thus, DOE will retain a
single product class for gas cooktops.
For electric cooktops, DOE determined that the ease of cleaning
smooth elements means that they have greater utility to the consumer
than coil elements. Because smooth elements typically use more energy
than coil elements, DOE has defined the following product classes for
electric cooktops:
Electric cooktop/low or high wattage open (coil) elements;
and
Electric cooktop/smooth elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ J. Flood and T. Enga, ``Energy Conservation `Aspects of
Cooking Appliances,'' Proceedings of the 1983 International Gas
Research Conference, June 13, 1983, London, UK, pp 741-54. Available
online at: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM stated that if DOE decides to proceed with further analysis of
cooking products, DOE should include an additional product class for
induction cooktops. AHAM commented the utility and performance
attributes associated with high-performance cooking products must be
recognized and allowed to continue under the safe harbor provisions of
NAECA. Due to test procedure complexities, small market share, and lack
of empirical data, AHAM and Whirlpool recommended that DOE exempt
induction cooktops. Whirlpool further commented that if induction
cooktops are analyzed, they must be treated as a separate product
class, which would entail development of a new test procedure. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 85; AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 2-4; Whirlpool,
No. 10 at p.
[[Page 64445]]
5) During the engineering analysis (Chapter 5 of the TSD) DOE
determined that induction cooktops cannot be tested according the
existing test procedure, and, therefore, DOE will not consider this
technology for the ANOPR analysis. DOE seeks efficiency data and inputs
to characterize any limitations of the test procedure for induction
cooktops. This topic is identified as Issue 6 under ``Issues on Which
DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.E of this ANOPR.
For electric ovens, DOE 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-cleaning
ovens use a pyrolytic process that provides enhanced consumer utility
with different overall energy consumption, as compared to either
standard or catalytically-lined ovens, due to the amount of energy used
during the cleaning cycle and better insulation. Thus, DOE has defined
the following product classes for electric ovens:
Electric oven/standard oven with or without a catalytic
line; and
Electric oven/self-clean oven.
AHAM concurred with this approach during the Framework public
meeting, stating that non-self-cleaning and self-cleaning ovens should
remain as separate product classes. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5
at pp. 85-86) AHAM and Whirlpool both commented that the feature of a
``catalytic line'' is obsolete and, therefore, should be removed from
the non-self-cleaning oven product class description. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 5 at p. 86; Whirlpool, No. 10 at pp. 9-10) While DOE is
not aware of any electric ovens currently on the market that are
catalytically lined, it will retain the current description for
completeness.
For gas ovens, for the same reasons as for electric ovens, DOE is
using the following product classes:
Gas oven/standard oven with or without a catalytic line;
and
Gas oven/self-clean oven.
AHAM stated that if DOE decides to proceed with further analysis,
DOE should include additional product classes for high-performance,
commercial-style products, which include commercial-style gas ovens
(i.e., with burner firing rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h). AHAM
commented that the utility and performance attributes associated with
high-performance cooking products must be recognized and allowed to
continue under the safe harbor provisions of NAECA. Due to test
procedure complexities and small market share, AHAM recommended that
DOE exempt high-performance, commercial-style products. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 85-86; AHAM, No. 14 at pp. 2-4) DOE recognizes
that the test procedure may not adequately measure performance of
commercial-style ovens. The single test block may not adequately
measure the temperature distribution that is inherent with the larger
cavity volumes and higher firing rates typically found in these
products. DOE is not aware of any data upon which to determine the
measurement of energy efficiency or energy efficiency characteristics
for commercial-style ovens, so therefore will not conduct an analysis
on this product class at this time. DOE seeks data and inputs regarding
the energy efficiency of commercial-type cooktopsstyle ovens as well as
any limitations of the test procedure for this product class. This
topic is identified as Issue 6 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section IV.E of this ANOPR.
As discussed for electric ovens, AHAM and Whirlpool stated that the
``catalytic line'' descriptor for the standard gas oven product class
is obsolete and should be removed. While DOE is not aware of any gas
ovens currently on the market that are catalytically lined, it will
retain the current description for completeness.
Finally, microwave ovens will constitute a single product class in
this rulemaking. DOE did not break down this category of cooking
product into further product classes. This product class can encompass
microwave ovens with and without browning (thermal) elements, but does
not include microwave ovens that incorporate convection systems. DOE is
unaware of any data evaluating the efficiency characteristics of
microwave ovens incorporating convection systems, so therefore this
type of unit will not be included in the analysis. DOE seeks data and
inputs on the performance of microwave ovens with convection systems.
This topic is identified as Issue 6 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section IV.E of this ANOPR.
AHAM stated during the Framework public meeting that additional
product classes for microwave ovens are needed that would likely be a
function of volume and wattage, and possibly installation configuration
(i.e., counter-top versus over-the-range ovens). (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 86-87) In comments submitted after the
Framework public meeting, AHAM reiterated these comments and added that
humidity sensors would also need to be considered. However, AHAM
conceded that the lack of efficiency data makes it impossible to
determine the appropriate product classes at this time. (AHAM, No. 14
at p. 6) Similarly, Whirlpool stated that, without existing energy
consumption standards, it does not have any data to formulate
appropriate product classes for microwave ovens, and the company
commented that obtaining these data would be costly and time consuming.
(Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 6) After the Framework public meeting, AHAM
supplied microwave oven efficiency data to DOE that failed to identify
any correlation between efficiency and either rated output power or
cavity volume. Therefore, DOE has decided not to define product classes
as a function of features such as volume or wattage, and instead will
retain the single product class of microwave ovens with or without
thermal elements.
Comments did not strongly support the inclusion of microwave/
thermal ovens in the analyses. In addition, several comments used the
term ``combination ovens'' to refer to not only microwave/thermal ovens
but also other technologies, such as halogen bulbs. EEI questioned
whether DOE would consider combination ovens for future analysis,
referring to both microwave plus thermal and microwave plus convection
units. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 139) GE and AHAM both
commented that the DOE test procedure is inadequate to measure
combination ovens. AHAM further stated that the small market share of
combination ovens should preclude them from the analysis. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 140-141). In comments submitted after
the Framework meeting, EEI stated that, depending on market share,
combination ovens could impact baseline energy usage. Although EEI did
not suggest including combination ovens in the analyses, it did state
that DOE should ensure that any standards do not eliminate these
products from the market. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 6) Whirlpool, however,
expressed its opinion that combination ovens should not be considered a
separate product class due to variations in design and low market
share. (Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 6)
DOE recognizes that the microwave oven test procedure can only test
the microwave heating function of microwave/thermal ovens, and that it
cannot test the browning function of the radiant or halogen elements.
However, such browning features are typically a secondary function of a
microwave/thermal unit, with the primary cooking
[[Page 64446]]
being accomplished via microwave heating. In combination units, the
convection system performs a significant portion of the cooking
process, and, therefore, the inability to measure performance of the
convection component would render the test procedure inadequate. DOE
has no information that demonstates a difference in energy performance
between microwave/thermal ovens operating in microwave mode and
microwave ovens. Therefore, DOE will include microwave ovens with
thermal browning elements in the single product class. As discussed
above, DOE will not conduct an analysis at this time of combination
microwave ovens due to a lack of data evaluating energy efficiency or
energy efficiency characteristics of microwave ovens incoporating
convection systems.
DOE received several comments regarding additional product classes
for cooking products not specifically covered in the above product
classes. For example, EEI questioned whether outdoor natural-gas-fired
or propane-fired grills are a covered product for this analysis, and,
if so, it recommended that DOE conduct an investigation into shipments
and usage patterns. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 5) The test procedures
established in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix I are specified for
kitchen ranges and ovens. Further, the test procedures provide for
estimating annual operating cost for conventional ranges, conventional
cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, and microwave/
conventional ranges. In response, DOE believes that the specification
of ``kitchen'' and ``household cooking appliance'' in the definitions
of ``conventional range'' and ``conventional cooking top'' excludes
outdoor gas/propane grills. Therefore, DOE has decided not to include
outdoor gas/propane grills in the present analyses.
EEI also commented after the Framework public meeting that DOE
should include compact cooking products such as toaster ovens in the
analysis. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 3) However, the definition of
``conventional oven'' provided in 10 CFR 430.2 states, in relevant
part, ``It does not include portable or countertop ovens which use
electric resistance heating for the cooking or heating of food and are
designed for an electrical supply of approximately 120 volts.''
Therefore, DOE is not including toaster ovens in the present analyses
because they are not covered products.
In sum, in this rulemaking DOE is using the following eight product
classes in analyzing and setting standards for cooking products:
Gas cooktops/conventional burners;
Electric cooktop/low or high wattage open (coil) elements;
Electric cooktop/smooth elements;
Gas oven/standard oven with or without a catalytic line;
Gas oven/self-clean oven;
Electric oven/standard oven with or without a catalytic
line;
Electric oven/self-clean oven; and
Microwave oven with or without thermal elements.
d. Commercial Clothes Washers
EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA placed all CCWs in one product class
and applied a single standard for energy efficiency and a single
standard for water efficiency for this equipment. (EPACT 2005, section
136(e); 42 U.S.C. 6313(e)) This class encompasses both top-loading
(vertical-axis) and front-loading (horizontal-axis) units.
During the Framework public meeting and Framework comment period,
DOE received comments expressing opposing viewpoints regarding the use
of one or two product classes for CCWs. Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS)
pressed for two product classes, because ALS believes that in the eyes
of consumers, horizontal- and vertical-axis washers can be
significantly differentiated in terms of utility and cost. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 42) However, the Joint Comment argued
for a single product class, saying that consumers only want to clean
their clothes and, thus, make no distinction between washer product
platforms. (Joint Comment, No. 9 at p. 5) The Joint Comment argued
that, according to EPCA's definition of classes found at 42 U.S.C.
6219(a), commercial clothes washers should be treated as one class
because ``the function * * * of commericial clothes washers (i.e.,
cleaning clothes) does not depend on the orientation of the clothes
washer drum axis.'' (Joint Comment, No. 9 at p. 5) In addition, the
Joint Comment contended that DOE chose to maintain one product class
during the residential clothes washer rulemaking \12\ and, as a result,
urged DOE to do the same in this rulemaking. (Joint Comment, No. 9 at
p. 5) EEI also supported DOE's designation of a single commercial
clothes washer product class. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 3) AHAM ``recommends
that the Department conduct its analysis using the product categories
currently provided for in its regulations.'' (AHAM, No. 14 at p. 7) The
Multi-Housing Laundry Association (MLA) deferred to its member
manufacturers' opinions regarding a single product class. (MLA, No. 8
at p. 2) All manufacturers interviewed by DOE as part of the
manufacturer impact analysis opposed the elimination of vertical-axis
washers, which could arise as an issue if a single product class is
analyzed. (See TSD, Chapter 12.)DOE recognizes that, by analyzing a
single product class and applying a single standard for energy
efficiency and a single standard for water efficiency to all CCWs,
absent the consideration of other relevant factors, the highest
economically justified standards could be sufficiently stringent as to
possibly cause manufacturers to cease production of vertical-axis
washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ DOE notes that the Joint Comment is incorrect. DOE has
established five classes of residential clothes washers, including
top-loading compact, top-loading standard and front-loading (See 10
CFR part 430, section 430.32(g)). DOE understands how some
stakeholders could believe there is only one class of standard-size
residential clothes washers in DOE's regulations since the value of
the energy efficiency standard is the same for both classes. While
the standards are the same, DOE notes they are separate in DOE's
regulations found at 430.32(g). The max tech level for the two
classes are different, because of the utility features, and are,
therefore, separate classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, applies a single
standard for energy efficiency and a single standard for water
efficiency to all CCWs. The Congress enacted a single standard for CCWs
some years after DOE has established five classes for residential
clothes washers, which may suggest that Congress's initial assessment
was that a single class would be most reasonable when updating these
standards. The statutory provisions do not, however, specifically
prevent DOE from exercising its technical expertise to create separate
product classes subject to the same standards, if such differentiation
is determined to be appropriate.
After considering the comments on the Framework Document, DOE
decided to keep the single class of commercial clothes washers for
today's ANOPR, but remains open to the possibility of changing this
approach if further comments demonstrate that such a change is
warranted. The Joint Comment, for example, argued that the function of
clothes washers is to clean clothes and that all commercial clothes
washers perform this function and, therefore, should be treated as a
single class. DOE has previously rejected this argument. The
residential clothes washer rulemaking history clearly demonstrated that
size, the axis of access and certain technologies (e.g., suds savings)
had consumer utility that affect performance and, therefore, warranted
separate classes for residential products. Nevertheless, DOE has
decided to maintain a single class
[[Page 64447]]
for CCWs in today's ANOPR, for the reasons that follow. First, other
stakeholders did not provide any compelling information to support
proposing multiple product classes for CCWs, Second, even though there
may be some performance-related features on existing CCWs that might
warrant multiple CCW product classes (as was demonstrated in the
residential clothes washer rulemaking), technologies may be available
to enable top-loading units to attain the same efficiency level as
front-loading units, thereby rendering any product class distinction
meaningless.
In tentatively deciding to retain a single product class for CCWs,
DOE was sensitive to other considerations including the likely outcome
of requisite U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) review of the potential
impacts, if any, of efficiency standards on competition, given that a
large percentage of the overall market for commercial washers is
produced by one manufacturer that specializes in vertical-axis
machines. Another consideration may be the potential effect of
multiple-class standards on the market shares of vertical-axis and
horizontal-axis machines. For example, if separate standards further
widened the first cost differences between these two classes of
washers, then the overall result might be a decline in the market share
of the more energy efficient horizontal-axis machines, which could more
than offset any energy savings achieved in vertical-axis machines.
DOE notes that sections 325 (o)(4) and 327(d)(4) of EPCA require
DOE to consider the availability of performance characteristics,
features, and other characteristics in setting standards and in
considering State petitions for exemption from Federal preemption. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6297(d)(4)) The California Energy Commission
(CEC) submitted a petition for exemption from Federal preemption by
DOE's residential clothes washer standard.\13\ One of the factors on
which DOE based its denial of the CEC petition was that it would make
top-loading clothes washers unavailable in the market. (71 FR 78157)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ DOE Docket No. EE-RM-PET-100, submitted by the California
Energy Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the discussion above, DOE requests comments on clothes
washer product classes and, if DOE were to keep a single class for
commercial clothes washers, how to consider the requirements of section
325(o)(4) of EPCA in considering Trial Standard Levels. DOE
specifically seeks feedback on these product classes and invites
interested persons to submit written presentations of data, views, and
arguments as discussed in section IV.E of this ANOPR.
2. Market Assessment
AHAM is the trade association representing the majority of
dishwasher, dehumidifier, and cooking product manufacturers. AHAM
conducts market and consumer research studies and publishes a biennial
Major Appliance Fact Book. AHAM also develops and maintains technical
standards for various appliances to provide uniform, repeatable
procedures for measuring specific product characteristics and
performance features. Other trade associations relevant to this
rulemaking include the Coin Laundry Association (CLA), representing the
30,000 coin laundry owners globally, and the MLA, a trade association
of operator and supplier companies providing professional laundry
services for the multi-housing industry.
The majority of the domestic share of CCWs is held by four major
manufacturers: ALS, the Maytag Corporation (Maytag), Whirlpool, and GE.
Maytag and Whirlpool merged in 2006 but have continued to maintain both
product lines to this date.
DOE estimates that there are approximately 13 manufacturers of
residential dishwashers that serve the domestic market. Approximately
94 percent of the market is served by four manufacturers: AB Electrolux
(Frigidaire), GE, Maytag, and Whirlpool. The merger between Whirlpool
and Maytag resulted in the combined company accounting for 51 percent
of the domestic market.
DOE estimates that there are approximately 18 manufacturers of
residential dehumidifiers that serve the domestic market. Approximately
two thirds of the market is represented by two manufacturers: Whirlpool
and LG Electronics (LG).
DOE estimates that there are approximately 14 manufacturers of
cooking products (including ovens, cooktops, and ranges) that serve the
U.S. market. The majority of the cooking products market is represented
by four companies: Frigidaire, GE, Maytag, and Whirlpool. GE and
Whirlpool represent nearly three quarters of the electric range
products market. GE represents over a third of the gas range products
market, while the combined Whirlpool and Maytag comprise over a
quarter.
The microwave oven market differs from the rest of the domestic
cooking product market in that many of the manufacturers are foreign-
owned companies with manufacturing facilities outside of the United
States. Many of the domestic appliance manufacturers rebrand foreign-
manufactured microwave products. Major microwave oven manufacturers
are: LG, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung), and the Sharp
Electronics Corporation (Sharp), serving 67 percent of the domestic
market. The second tier of approximately 9 manufacturers serves the
remaining 33 percent of the domestic market.
Due to mergers and acquisitions, the home appliance industry
continues to consolidate. While the degree of market share
concentration varies by product type, the market shares of a few
companies provide evidence in support of this characterization.
According to the September 2006 issue of Appliance Magazine, Whirlpool,
GE, Frigidaire, and Maytag comprise 92 percent of the U.S. core
appliance market share. ``Core appliances'' include dishwashers,
freezers, ranges, refrigerators, and clothes washers. Whirlpool and
Maytag were allowed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to complete
a merger on March 31, 2006, after an investigation that focused
primarily on residential laundry but with consideration of impacts
across all product lines. Although opponents of the merger had asserted
that the combined companies would control as much as 70 percent of the
residential laundry market and as much as 50 percent of the residential
dishwasher market,\14\ DOJ determined that the merger would not give
Whirlpool excessive market power in the sale of its products and that
any attempt to raise prices would likely be unsuccessful. In support of
this claim, DOJ noted: (1) Other U.S. brands, including Sears Brands
LLC (Kenmore), GE, and Frigidaire, are well established; (2) foreign
manufacturers, including LG and Samsung, are gaining market share; (3)
existing U.S. manufacturers are operating below production capacity;
(4) the large home appliance retailers have alternatives available to
resist price increase attempts; and (5) Whirlpool and Maytag
substantiated large cost savings and other efficiencies that would
benefit consumers. The Whirlpool-Maytag merger follows several other
mergers and acquisitions in the home appliance industry. For example,
Maytag acquired Jenn-Air Corporation in 1982, Magic Chef, Inc. in 1986,
and Amana Appliances in 2001. Whirlpool acquired the KitchenAid
division of Hobart Corporation in 1986. White Consolidated Industries
(WCI)
[[Page 64448]]
acquired the Frigidaire division of General Motors Corporation in 1979,
and AB Electrolux acquired WCI (and therefore Frigidaire) in 1986. See
Chapter 3 of the TSD for more information regarding manufacturers of
CCWs and residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ P. Hussmann, ``Justice to Extend Maytag-Whirlpool Merger
Review,'' Newton Daily News Online (Feb. 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, DOE considers the possibility of small businesses
being impacted by the promulgation of energy conservation standards for
CCWs and residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products.
At this time, DOE is not aware of any small manufacturers, defined by
the Small Business Administration as having 750 employees or fewer, who
produce products that fall under this rulemaking and who, therefore,
would be impacted by a minimum efficiency standard. Should any small
business manufacturers of the four appliance products be identified,
DOE will study the potential impacts on these small businesses in
greater detail during the MIA, which it will conduct as a part of the
NOPR analysis. See Chapter 3 of the TSD for more information regarding
small business manufacturers of CCWs and residential dishwashers,
dehumidifiers, and cooking products.
Next, DOE identified distribution channels for each of the products
covered by this rulemaking. For CCWs, DOE determined that the market
consists of laundromats, private multi-family housing, and large
institutions (e.g., military barracks, universities, and housing
authorities). Most large institutions and a majority of private multi-
family housing (between 50 and 90 percent) do not purchase clothes
washers directly. Rather, these organizations lease their laundry space
to a third party known as a route operator. Route operators supply
laundry equipment and maintain facilities in exchange for a percentage
of the laundry revenue. Laundromats and some private building managers
purchase or lease clothes washers directly from distributors. The main
difference between route operators and distributors is the length of
service provided to their clients. Route operators provide ongoing
support while distributor support ends at the point of sale.
The distribution chain for residential appliances, including
dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products, differs from
commercial products, since the majority of consumers purchase their
appliances directly from retailers. These retailers include: (1) Home
improvement, appliance, and department stores; (2) Internet retailers;
(3) membership warehouse clubs; and (4) kitchen remodelers. DOE
determined that over 93 percent of residential appliances are
distributed from the manufacturer directly to a retailer. See Chapter 3
of the TSD for more information regarding distribution channels for
CCWs and residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products.
DOE considers regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives that affect
CCWs and residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products.
NAECA established Federal standards for residential dishwashers, which
were subsequently amended by DOE by a final rule published in the
Federal Register on May 14, 1994. (56 FR 22250) NAECA established
prescriptive standards for gas cooking products, requiring gas ranges
and ovens with an electrical supply cord not to be equipped with
constant burning pilots, and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of
rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295 (h)(1)-(2)) DOE issued a NOPR on March 4, 1994, proposing
performance standards for gas and electric residential cooking
products, including microwave ovens. 59 FR 10464. In accordance with
its 1996 Process Rule, DOE refined its standards analysis of cooking
products. With regard to gas cooking products, DOE focused on the
economic justification for eliminating standing pilot lights. Partially
due to the difficulty of conclusively demonstrating that elimination of
standing pilot lights was economically justified, DOE issued a final
rule on Sep