Disclaimer
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United LBNL-2001470
States Government.
While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States
DOI:10.20357/B7WP4F
Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of Californ
their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility forthe accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein
to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The
Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, or
The Regents of the University of California.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

Copyright
This manuscript has been authored by an author at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S.
Government retains, and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges,that the U.S. Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to
publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for U.S.
Government purposes.

1

U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment Report
Volume 3: Energy Savings Opportunity

Prepared for the
Advanced Manufacturing Office
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
U.S. Department of Energy

Prakash Rao, Ph.D.
Paul Sheaffer
Yuting Chen, Ph.D.
Unique Karki
Patrick Fitzgerald
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720

July 2022

The work described in this study was funded by the Advanced Manufacturing Office of the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231

2

Preface
In the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted two seminal studies to better
understand the installed stock and energy savings opportunities of industrial and commercial
motor systems: The United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities
Assessment (industrial sector) and Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential andCommercial Sectors with High Efficiency Electric Motors (commercial sector). In the more than
20 years since the publication of these reports, the U.S. industrial and commercial sectors haveundergone changes, including facility and/or motor system stock turnover, offshoring andonshoring of manufacturing, passage of motor efficiency standards, cost reductions in motor
driven systems, and more. To gain a more current understanding of motor systems in the U.S.
industrial and commercial sectors, DOE initiated an update to these two studies. Launched in2016 and led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the Motor System Market
Assessment (MSMA) provides an updated, more comprehensive assessment of the installedstock of motor systems in both the industrial and commercial sectors, a review of the supply
chains supporting motor and drives in the U.S., and the performance improvement opportunity
available from using best available technologies and maintenance and operation practices. The
outcomes of the MSMA are documented in three U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System
Market Assessment reports, with this one being the last listed:
1. Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base documents the findings on the installedbase of motor systems in the U.S. industrial and commercial sectors. Quantification ofenergy savings potential is not documented in the Volume 1 report but is done so in
Volume 3. A searchable website with the underlying information contained in Volume 1
report is available at https://motors.lbl.gov/inventory. This website has been establishedto serve as a complement to the Volume 1 report and allows readers to create their own
crosscuts and conduct their own analysis using the results from the Motor System
Market Assessment.
2. Volume 2: Advanced Motors and Drives Supply Chain Review reviews the state of supply
chains for motors and drives installed in U.S. industrial and commercial facilities,
focusing on advanced motor and drive technologies and their constituent materials.
3. Volume 3: Energy Savings Opportunity (this report) analyzes the energy performance
improvement opportunity for the installed base of U.S. industrial and commercial
motor systems.

3

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No.
DE-AC02-05CH11231.
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their guidance and leadership:
Allen Hefner, U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Manufacturing Office (retired)Paul Scheihing, U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Manufacturing Office (retired)
Aimee McKane, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (retired)
The authors are grateful to the following individuals and their organizations for their reviews andvaluable insights:
Rob Boteler, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Shouka Darvishi, Northwest Energy Efficiency AlliancePeter Gaydon, Hydraulic InstituteMichael Ivanovich, Air Movement and Control Association
Wayne Perry, Kaeser Compressors

4

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AC
B
CBECS
CNT
CO2
CR
DC
DOE
EASA
EEI
EIA
EPA
FIDVR
GWh
hp
HVAC
kW
kWh
LBNL
LF
MECS
MEPS
GaN
HTS
M
MANC
MMT
MSMA
NEMA
PBP
PM
PM SynRM
psig
psia
SiC
SR
SynRM
TWh
UTC
VFD
WBG

alternating current
billionCommercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
carbon nanotube
carbon dioxide
copper rotor
direct current
U.S. Department of Energy
Electrical Apparatus Service Association
Edison Electric Institute
U.S. Energy Information Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
fault-induced delayed voltage recovery
gigawatt-hour
horsepower
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
kilowatt
kilowatt-hour
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
load factor
Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
minimum energy performance standards
gallium nitride
high temperature superconducting
millionmetal amorphous nanocomposite material
million metric tons
motor system market assessment
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
payback period
permanent magnet
permanent magnet synchronous reluctancepounds per square inch gauge
pounds per square inch absolutesilicon carbide
switched reluctancesynchronous reluctanceterawatt-hours
unable to collectvariable frequency drive
wide bandgap

5

Executive Summary
At both the national and regional levels, aggressive decarbonization targets are being adopted in
response to the urgent need to address climate change. Similarly, corporations are also setting
ambitious carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction targets as part of their sustainability efforts. Achieving
these targets will require a staged approach that is initiated with deep energy efficiency
improvements progressing to electrification, widespread adoption of renewable and clean energy
generation, and deployment of emerging technologies/processes such as carbon capture,
sequestration, and utilization. Often lost in this progression is the role of motor systems. Since
they are already electrically driven, the common thinking is that decarbonizing motor systemenergy consumption will follow the decarbonization of the electric grid, with no further
intervention necessary. However, this notion overlooks the various important roles motor
systems play in decarbonizing the economy:•••

Increasing the energy efficiency and power management of existing motor systems will
substantially reduce the costs associated with the expansion of renewable electricity
generation capacity, given the magnitude of the grid electricity used for motor systems.
Many electrification plans involve adoption of a motor-based technology, such as a heatpump and replacement of fossil-fuel powered machine loads.
Efficient electric load flexibility, which is needed to balance intermittent renewableelectricity generation, is enabled by drives on motor systems.

This report seeks to inform the potential for motor systems to support decarbonization by
estimating their potential energy, electricity cost, and CO2 emissions reduction potential fromadoption of proven energy efficiency actions and advanced technologies. This is the third andfinal report in a series of reports disseminating the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy’s(DOE’s) Motor System Market Assessment (MSMA). The MSMA and this report focus on
polyphase motor systems greater than or equal to 1 horsepower (hp) in the industrial andcommercial sectors. In the U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment
Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base (Volume 1 report), it was determined thatthese motor systems consume more than 1,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) annually. This equates to
29% of the U.S. electric grid load and results in 765 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2
emissions and $166 billion in electricity costs. This report finds that substantial reductions tothese energy, cost, and emissions impacts are possible, with three areas of significant opportunity
being (1) improved load matching, (2) replacing older inefficient motors with more efficient
motors, and (3) improving the condition of fluid (e.g., air, water, compressed air) distribution
systems. A summary of the savings potential from these three opportunities placed within thecontext of the overall consumption for motor systems is illustrated in Figure ES 1 (industrial)
and Figure ES 2 (commercial).

6

Figure ES 1: Summary of energy consumption, cost expenditures, and CO2 emissions for industrial
motor systems and reduction potential from the most significant opportunities

Figure ES 2: Summary of energy consumption, cost expenditures, and CO2 emissions forcommercial motor systems and reduction potential from the most significant opportunities

In the Volume 1 report, it was found that 47% of industrial and 50% of commercial motor
systems operate at loads less than 75% of full capacity. Adoption of the right-sized motors and/or
installation of a variable frequency drive (VFD) has the potential to save 115,000 gigawatt-hours
per year (GWh/yr) across both sectors, translating into reductions of $13.2 billion and 81.7 MMT
of CO2.
The Volume 1 report found that the energy efficiency of industrial motors ranged between 83%
and 93%. For commercial motors, the energy efficiency ranged between 82% and 95%. Newer
motor designs offer substantial improvements in motor efficiency. The efficiency of Premium
Efficiency motors ranges between 86% and 96%. Advanced motor technologies, like Permanent
Magnet designs, offer about another 1% improvement in efficiency. Upgrading older inefficient
motors to more efficient designs, such as Premium Efficiency, could yield 32,458 GWh/yr insavings, translating to reductions of $3.6 billion and 23 MMT of CO2 across both sectors.

7

Also in the Volume 1 report, it was found that most industrial and commercial motor system
distribution systems experienced significant energy losses due to insufficient maintenance.
Improving these systems such that energy losses are minimized would result in 40,457 GWh/yrin energy savings, translating to reductions of $4.2 billion and 28.7 MMT of CO2.
This report also examines the energy, cost, and CO2 reduction potential associated with adoptionof advanced motor technologies. Specifically, this report examines 1: Permanent Magnet (PM; 1–
500 hp), Switched Reluctance (SR; 1–200 hp), Synchronous Reluctance (SynRM; 1–500 hp),
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Reluctance (PMSynRM; 1–200 hp), and Copper Rotor (CR; 1–
20 hp). Except for CR motors, these advanced motors offer improved efficiency at full load andlow loads compared to induction motors and variable speed capability. Therefore, these four
motor types offer energy, cost, and CO2 savings potential across all load profiles. CR motors
offer improved energy efficiency at full loads. Table ES 1 summarizes the energy, cost, and CO2
savings from these advanced technologies by sector. Due to their availability in a wide range ofsizes and their applicability to improve the energy efficiency of part-load systems, PM motors
offer the greatest savings across the two sectors, followed very closely by SynRM motors.
Table ES 1: Energy, cost and CO2 savings from adoption of advanced motor technologies
Electricity
Savings(GWh/yr)
Permanent Magnet
Industrial
45,014
Commercial
82,180Switched ReluctanceIndustrial
36,059Commercial
85,927
Synchronous ReluctanceIndustrial
44,105
Commercial
80,051
Permanent Magnet Synchronous ReluctanceIndustrial
31,688Commercial
76,985
Copper Rotor
Industrial
2,430
Commercial
7,004

Cost Savings(million $/yr)

CO2 Savings(MMT/yr)

3,788
10,862

31.9
58.3

3,042
11,484

25.6
60.9

3,711
10,568

31.3
56.8

2,668
10,249

22.5
54.6

205
1,015

1.7
5.0

Table ES 2 shows a summary of the energy, cost, and CO2 emissions savings from the threemeasures and advanced motor technologies, broken out by industrial and commercial subsector.
PM motors have been selected to represent savings from advanced motor technologies since they
have the greatest applicability, availability, and consequently greatest savings potential. This
report examines additional savings opportunities not included in Table ES 2, including rewind
losses, replacing V-belts with cog belts, pump impeller trimming, elimination of inappropriate
1

The abbreviation used in this report and the size range evaluated are given in parentheses.

8uses of compressed air, installation of sequencers on air compressors, and reductions incompressed air pressure set points. Additionally, opportunities associated with improved energy
management for pumping, fan, compressed air, refrigeration, materials handling, and materials
processing systems are qualitatively summarized in the report.
Table ES 2: Summary of energy, cost, and CO2 emissions savings potential from improved load
control/matching, early retirement of less efficient motors and replacement with Premium
Efficiency, improvements to distribution systems, and adoption of advanced technologies(represented by PM motors) for the industrial and commercial sectors
Opportunity

Electricity Savings(GWh/yr)

Improved load control/matching
Industrial
45,527
Commercial
69,737
Early retirement of old motors to Premium Efficiency
Industrial
15,571
Commercial
16,877
Improvements to distribution systems
Industrial
24,141
Commercial
16,316
Advanced technology (PM)Industrial
45,014
Commercial
82,180

Cost Savings(million $/yr)

CO2 Savings(MMT/yr)

3,824
9,414

32.2
49.4

1,308
2,278

11.0
12.0

2,028
2,203

17.1
11.6

3,788
10,862

31.9
58.3

Note: The energy savings associated with the adoption of multiple measures may not be the sum of the energy
savings of each individual measure due to interactions between them. Also note that the savings from advanced
technologies were only evaluated for size ranges within which the technology is commercially available.

Within each sector, the Volume 1 report identified and quantified motor system electricity
consumption by subsector. In the industrial sector, the subsectors with the greatest motor systemelectricity consumption are: Chemicals, Primary Metals, Food, Paper, Plastics and Rubber, andPetroleum Refining. Table ES 3 identifies the most significant energy, cost, and CO2 emission
reduction opportunities for each of these subsectors. Also shown are the savings from adoptionof advanced motor technologies (represented by PM motors). In all subsectors, improving load
control, either through installation of VFDs or adoption of advanced technologies, offered thegreatest opportunities.
Table ES 3: The top three motor system energy reduction opportunities for the top six industrial
subsectors by motor system electricity consumption

Baseline
Savings estimates

Electricity(GWh/yr)
Chemicals
105,699

Cost(million $/yr)

CO2(MMT/yr)

9,196

74.9

VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade

10,459
2,780

879
234

7.4
2.0

Rewind

1,576

132

1.1

9

Electricity(GWh/yr)
8,621
Primary Metals
63,917

Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Air duct distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Advanced technology (PM)Baseline

CO2(MMT/yr)
6.1

5,561

45.3

4,006
2,701

337
227

2.8
1.9

1,528

128
411

1.1

4,140

33.7

4,593
1,376

386

3.3
1.0

1,343

113
394

1.0

3,917

31.9

262

2.2
1.1

4,897
Food
47,585

4,688
Paper
45,026

Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Pump distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)Cost(million $/yr)
724

3,116
1,578
1,388
2,161
Plastics and Rubber
39,898

116

133
117
182

3.5

3.3

1.0
1.5

3,471

28.3
1.1
0.9
0.5

3,051
Petroleum Refining
39,269

133
111
59
256
3,416

27.8

6,626
797

557
67

4.7
0.6

Pump distribution system improvements

578

49

0.4

Advanced technology (PM)

5,358

450

3.8

Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Air duct distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade

1,586
1,317
701

2.2

10

Note: The energy savings associated with the adoption of multiple measures may not be the sum of the energy
savings of each individual measure due to interactions between them. Also note that the energy savings fromadoption of advanced technologies were only evaluated for size ranges within which the technology is commerciallyavailable.

Within the commercial sector, the Office, Education, Lodging, Warehouse and Storage, Food
Service, and Healthcare Inpatient subsectors consume the most energy for motor systems. The
biggest opportunities for each of these subsectors are shown in Table ES 4. Also shown are thesavings associated with adoption of advanced technologies (represented by PM motors). In all
subsectors, improving load control, either through installation of VFDs or upgrading to anadvanced motor technology, offers the greatest opportunity for energy, cost, and CO2 reductions.
In accordance with the significant energy consumption for fan systems (as reported in theVolume 1 report), large savings opportunities exist for improving the condition of air duct
distribution systems.
Table ES 4: The top three motor system energy reduction opportunities for the top six commercial
subsectors by motor system electricity consumption
Electricity(GWh/yr)

Cost(million $/yr)

CO2(MMT/yr)

Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Air duct distribution system improvements
Premium Efficiency Motor Upgrade

93,335

12,134

66.2

11,930
2,660

8.5
1.9

2,128

1,611
359
287

Advanced technology (PM)14,544

1,963

10.3

Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD

76,339

9,924

54.1

11,546

1,559

8.2

Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Air duct distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)

2,597
1,417

1.8
1.0

14,266

351
191
1,926

10.1

59,189

7,695

42.0

5,636

761
216
111

4.0

945

5.0

5,207

28.4

Office1.5

Education

Lodging
Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindAdvanced technology (PM)Baseline

1,597
825
7,001
Warehouse and Storage
40,054

1.1
0.6

11

Electricity(GWh/yr)

Cost(million $/yr)

CO2(MMT/yr)

2,801
1,773
1,121

378
239
151
692

2.0
1.3
0.8

34,776

4,521

24.7

5,863
1,727
1,190

792
233

4.2
1.2
0.8

Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Air duct distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Air duct distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates

5,128
Food Service

7,718
Healthcare Inpatient
34,759VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Air duct distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)

4,796
934
702
3,481

161
1,042

3.6

5.5

4,519

24.6

647
126
95
470

3.4
0.7
0.5
2.5

Note: The energy savings associated with the adoption of multiple measures may not be the sum of the energy
savings of each individual measure due to interactions between them. Also note that the energy savings from theadoption of advanced technologies were only evaluated for size ranges within which the technology iscommercially available.

Opportunities for energy, CO2 emissions, and cost reductions for motor systems also can be
broken down by the equipment driven by the motor (e.g., pump, fan). For definitions of eachtype of the driven equipment, please see the glossary in the Volume 1 report. Two commonlysought definitions are for materials processing and materials handling, and those are reprinted
here: Materials processing includes motor systems that use mechanical means to processmaterials. Examples include grinders, hydraulics, and extruder motors. Materials handlingincludes motor systems that transport materials, such as conveyor motors.
Table ES 5 provides a summary of the largest opportunities by motor driven equipment. For
driven equipment that operates on the principle of applying centrifugal forces (e.g., most pump,fan, air compressor, and refrigeration compressor systems), load control via VFDs or anadvanced technology offered the greatest savings opportunity, except for compressed air systems
where improvements to the distribution system offers the greatest savings opportunity. For noncentrifugal systems (e.g., materials processing and handling), improvements to the motor itself
offers the greatest opportunity.
Table ES 5: Energy, CO2, and cost reduction opportunities by motor system driven equipment for
the industrial sector

12Energy(GWh/yr)
Pumping Systems

Cost(million $/yr)

CO2 Emissions(MMT/yr)

115,868

10,081

82.2

10,354
5,493
4,431

870
461
372

7.3
3.9
3.1

11,493
Fan Systems

965

8.1

Baseline
Savings estimates

112,942

9,826

80.1

VFD
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Advanced technology (PM)13,724

1,153

9.7

8,959

753

6.4

2,986
13,489Compressed Air Systems

251
1,133

2.1
9.6

63,613

5,534

45.1

10,751
10,408

903
874

8,913
8,461
Refrigeration Systems

749
711

7.6
7.4
6.3

68,007

5,917

48.2

VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindAdvanced technology (PM)

9,869
1,935
944
7,056
Materials Processing Systems

829
163
79
593

7.0
1.4
0.7
5.0

Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing

155,783

13,553

110.5

5,232
2,254
455

439
189
38

3.7
1.6
0.3

3,644
Materials Handling Systems

306

2.6

19,998

1,740

14.2

Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Impeller trimming
Distribution system improvements
Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates
Distribution system improvements
VFD
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates

Advanced technology (PM)Baseline

6.0

13

Energy(GWh/yr)

Cost(million $/yr)

CO2 Emissions(MMT/yr)

644
311
69
671

54
26
6
56

0.5
0.2
0.05
0.5

Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
Advanced technology (PM)Note: The energy savings associated with the adoption of multiple measures may not be the sum of the energy
savings of each individual measure due to interactions between them. Also note that the energy savings from theadoption of advanced technologies were only evaluated for size ranges within which the technology is commerciallyavailable.

Table ES 6 shows the energy, CO2 emissions, and cost reduction opportunities by driven
equipment in the commercial sector. Here again, systems prominently driven by centrifugal
equipment have significant opportunities associated with improved load control, either throughinstallation of VFDs or adoption of an advanced technology. Systems that do not use centrifugal
forces have significant opportunities associated with upgrading the motor.
Table ES 6: Energy, CO2, and cost reduction opportunities by motor system driven equipment forthe commercial sector
Energy(GWh/yr)
Pumping Systems

Cost(million $/yr)

CO2 Emissions(MMT/yr)

52,907

6,878

37.5

VFD
Impeller trimming
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Advanced technology (PM)

2,884
2,031
2,006
5,435
Fan Systems

389
274
271
734

2.0
1.4
1.4
3.9

Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Distribution system improvements

192,085

24,971

136.2

18,875
12,935

2,548
1,746

13.4
9.2

2,678
27,942Compressed Air Systems

362
3,772

1.9
19.5

Baseline
Savings estimates

12,564

1,633

8.9

VFD
Distribution system improvements

2,110
1,877

285
253

1.5
1.3

Eliminate inappropriate uses

1,572

212

1.1

Baseline
Savings estimates

RewindAdvanced technology (PM)14

Energy(GWh/yr)
1,519
Refrigeration Systems

Cost(million $/yr)
205

CO2 Emissions(MMT/yr)
1.1

251,522

32,698178.3

44,593
7,452

6,020
1,006

31.6
5.3

3,491
46,684
Materials Processing Systems

471
6,302

2.5
33.1

1,549

201

1.1

78
60
Materials Handling Systems

11
8

0.1
0.04

Baseline

9,282

1,207

6.6

Savings estimate
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindAdvanced technology (PM)

513
129
686

69
17
93

0.4
0.1
0.5

Advanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindAdvanced technology (PM)Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Advanced technology (PM)Note: The energy savings associated with the adoption of multiple measures may not be the sum of the energy
savings of each individual measure due to interactions between them. Also note that the energy savings from theadoption of advanced technologies were only evaluated for size ranges within which the technology is commerciallyavailable.

15

Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 16
Background and Motivation ........................................................................................................ 18
Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Sample Weighting.................................................................................................................................. 21
Electricity Prices .................................................................................................................................... 21
CO2 Emission Calculation .................................................................................................................... 23
Payback Period Analysis....................................................................................................................... 24
Cautions in Interpreting Results .......................................................................................................... 24

Energy, Cost, and CO2 Reduction Opportunities........................................................................ 25
Early Motor Replacement with Premium Efficiency Motors ........................................................... 25
Premium efficiency motors ................................................................................................................................ 26
Cost-effective early replacement ........................................................................................................................ 29
Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 30

Improved Load Control/Matching with Conventional Technologies ............................................... 30
Implementation of variable frequency drives on variably underloaded motor systems ..................................... 32
Cost-effective implementation of variable frequency drives ............................................................................. 33
Non-energy savings benefits of VFDs ............................................................................................................... 35
Right sizing motors in constant underloaded motor systems ............................................................................. 36
Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 37

Adoption of Advanced Technologies ................................................................................................... 38
Constant load systems ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Variable load systems ......................................................................................................................................... 41
Other benefits of advanced motor technologies ................................................................................................. 43
Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Conditions of Distribution Systems ..................................................................................................... 45
Improving condition of distribution systems ...................................................................................................... 49
Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 49

Rewind Losses ........................................................................................................................................ 50
Energy losses from improper rewinds ................................................................................................................ 51
Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 52

V-belts to Cog belts................................................................................................................................ 52
Upgrading to synchronous/notched belts ........................................................................................................... 53
Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 54

Savings Estimates by Driven Equipment ............................................................................................ 54
Pumping systems ................................................................................................................................................ 54
Fan and blower systems...................................................................................................................................... 61
Compressed air systems ..................................................................................................................................... 67

16

Refrigeration systems ......................................................................................................................................... 76
Materials processing ........................................................................................................................................... 83
Materials handling .............................................................................................................................................. 87

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 92
References .................................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix A: Savings Estimates by Industrial Subsector ........................................................... 97
Chemicals ............................................................................................................................................... 98
Primary Metals ...................................................................................................................................... 99
Food ...................................................................................................................................................... 100
Paper ..................................................................................................................................................... 101
Plastics and Rubber............................................................................................................................. 102
Petroleum Refining.............................................................................................................................. 103

Appendix B: Savings Estimates by Commercial Subsector ...................................................... 104
Office..................................................................................................................................................... 105
Education ............................................................................................................................................. 106
Lodging ................................................................................................................................................. 107
Warehouse and Storage ...................................................................................................................... 108
Food Service ......................................................................................................................................... 109
Healthcare Inpatient ........................................................................................................................... 110

17

Background and Motivation
Decarbonizing the U.S. industrial and commercial sectors has emerged at the forefront ofdomestic energy policy (Executive Order No. 14057, 2021; National Academies of Sciences
Engineering and Medicine, 2021; The White House, 2021; U.S. DOS and EOP, 2021; U.S.
Congress, 2020). Reducing energy consumption through energy efficiency and productivity
improvements has a central role in cost-effectively achieving a decarbonized economy. A quarterof all U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2019 were attributable to the generation,transmission, and distribution of electricity. The companion to this report, U.S. Industrial andCommercial Motor System Market Assessment Report Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed
Base (Rao et al., 2021, Volume 1 report), reported that 29% of U.S. electric grid demand (basedon 2018 generation) is from polyphase motors 1 horsepower (hp) or greater in the industrial andcommercial sectors. This corresponds to 15% of all U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions, 27% of
all industrial sector energy-related CO2 emissions, and 42% of all commercial sector energyrelated emissions in 2018 (U.S. EIA, 2019, 2021). Achieving energy savings for these motor
systems can substantially reduce sector-wide and national energy-related CO2 emissions.
Even under an ideal scenario where the electric grid is supported by 100% renewable electricity
generation (and therefore, zero CO2 emissions), realizing energy savings for industrial andcommercial motor systems can significantly reduce the amount of renewable energy generation
capacity needed and consequently lower the cost for decarbonizing the electric grid. A recent
study by Cole et al. (2021) found that it will cost about $3 trillion to achieve a 95% renewableelectric grid in the U.S. by 2050, with costs increasing non-linearly thereafter to reach 100%
renewable electricity generation. Improvements to the energy efficiency of motor systems andthe resulting energy savings can avoid the higher marginal costs associated with building out arenewable electric grid.
From the perspective of the facility, energy savings through energy efficiency is adecarbonization strategy that will also cut operating costs. The Volume 1 report found that U.S.
industrial and commercial motor systems consume 1,078 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity
annually: 546,963 gigawatt-hours (GWh) for industrial systems and 532,024 GWh forcommercial systems. At a national average electric rate of $0.086/kilowatt-hour (kWh) for
industry and $0.13/kWh for commercial buildings,2 industrial and commercial building
owners/operators spend $116 billion per year on electricity for motor systems ($47 billion forindustry and $69 billion for commercial). A 5% reduction in electricity consumption coulddeliver nearly $6 billion in savings year-on-year for business owners.
For several years, the U.S. industrial and commercial sectors have been realizing substantial
reductions in motor system energy consumption. Most notably, the U.S. has been a global leader
in setting minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for motors. Today, most polyphasemotors between 1 and 500 hp produced and/or sold in the U.S. must meet the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) criteria for Premium Efficiency (10 C.F.R. § 431.25, 2014).
To put this into context, the Volume 1 report found that the average polyphase industrial motor is
2

These rates were calculated using a weighted average of regional electric rates in 2020 based on the distribution of
motor system energy consumption.

18

27 hp and the average polyphase commercial motor is 8 hp. For a 4-pole open enclosure motor,
the Premium Efficiency (and subsequently the legally required minimum) energy efficiency
levels for 7.5 and 25 hp motors are 91% and 93.6%, respectively (10 C.F.R. § 431.25, 2014).
While there is still room to improve upon existing motor efficiency levels, greater energy savings
are achievable when considering the broader system. The broader system (see Figure 1)
considers the energy efficiency across a boundary that begins with electricity coming into thefacility and ends with mechanical power being transmitted to an end-use application. Commonly,
and in this report, it is taken to include the electric drive and controller, motor, powertransmission (e.g., gearbox, belt), driven equipment (e.g., pump, fan, compressor), and the fluid
distribution system (e.g., compressed air line, air ducts).
To better address the overall system efficiency, energy efficiency labels have been developed tocapture more of the system-wide energy losses. These include the Pump Energy Index, which
can be applied across the drive, motor, and pump, and is used to establish minimum energy
performance standards for pumps sold in the U.S. (10 C.F.R. § 431.465, 2016). Previous
analyses have concluded a wide range of energy savings potential across the motor system, from
7% to 57% (De Almeida et al., 2019; McKane and Hasanbeigi, 2011; Waide et al., 2011).
Savings can be realized as a result of a variety of energy efficiency actions, such as
implementation of variable frequency drives (VFDs), appropriately sizing each component of thesystem, and eliminating losses within the fluid distribution systems (e.g., repairing compressed
air leaks).

Figure 1: Block diagram of a motor drive system

In recent years, the motor system market has evolved into one that is more conducive toimplementation of energy-saving measures. In addition to the aforementioned minimum energy
performance standards for motors and pumps, the cost of VFDs has fallen significantly, such that
it is approximately equal to the motor cost (Dols et al., 2014). As another example, energy
awareness campaigns such as DOE’s Better Plants program, the Compressed Air Challenge, andthe Consortium for Energy Efficiency’s Motor Decision Matters have raised awareness of motor
system energy efficiency practices. Further, electric utilities have rebate incentive programsaround energy efficient motors and drives, thereby reducing their implementation costs (NCState University and NC Clean Energy Technology Center, 2022).
In parallel, the research community has integrated novel materials into motors and drives. The
result has been expanded applicability of energy-saving technologies, improved energy
performance, and greater power density. For example, the integration of wide band gap materials
into VFDs has extended the range of their use to include larger motor systems (e.g., medium

19

voltage, greater than 1,000 hp). Similarly, the integration of rare earth elements, such as
neodymium, into magnets has created a class of motors with greater power densities and abilities
to operate efficiently across a wide range of loads. Many of these advanced technologies andtheir benefits were documented in the U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market
Assessment Volume 2: Advanced Motors and Drives Supply Chain report (Newkirk et al., 2021,
Volume 2 report).
Prior to the publication of the Volume 1 report, the understanding of the installed motor systembase in U.S. commercial and industrial facilities was out of date and not reflective of the current
motor system market. As a result, the opportunity for energy, operating cost savings, and CO2
reductions from existing motor system energy efficiency measures and implementation ofadvanced technologies could not be confidently determined. However, with the publication of
the Volume 1 report, the current state of installed motor systems has been comprehensively
evaluated and documented. This affords the opportunity to determine with confidence thepotential energy, cost, and CO2 savings associated with implementation of motor system energy
efficiency measures and advanced technologies. To that end, this report uses the results from theVolume 1 report to evaluate the electricity, CO2, and operating cost savings potential from theadoption of several motor system energy efficiency practices and technologies, such as:••••

Early replacement of motors with Premium Efficiency models
Improved load matching through adoption of VFDs and right sizing motors and greater
adoption of advanced variable speed motors
Improvements to fluid distribution systems
Adoption of advanced technologies

Savings estimates are broken out by sector, driven equipment (e.g., pumps, fan, air compressors),
and industrial and commercial subsectors (in Appendix A: Savings Estimates by Industrial
Subsectors and Appendix B: Savings Estimates by Commercial Subsector). Additionally, thepotential applicability of several energy-saving measures, such as the use of meters andperformance curves, is also presented. The findings from this report are intended to help:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Industrial and commercial business owners reduce the costs of operating their motor
systems
Policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels develop technical assistance,
incentives, and other policies intended to spur motor system energy efficiency
improvements
Motor, drive, and driven equipment manufacturers reduce the lifetime running costs of
their systems
Electric utilities design and implement motor system incentive programs that target theirmost critical needs
Energy efficiency service providers understand the opportunities and needs of theircustomers
Researchers design improved motor systems to achieve deeper savings

With the urgent need to decarbonize the U.S. economy, adoption of these measures andtechnologies represents a critical path forward towards cost-effectively decarbonizing the U.S.
industrial and commercial sectors.

20

Methods
The method for executing the Motor System Market Assessment (MSMA) was described in theVolume 1 report, with additional details in the appendices. These methods resulted in thecollection of information on industrial and commercial motor systems that underpins the analysis
presented in this report. In the Volume 1 report, the current state of the installed motor systembase was comprehensively characterized, including the motor system counts and consumption
distribution by motor size, efficiency, operating mode, driven equipment type, and subsector.
Other practices that may affect energy saving opportunities, such as load factors, load controls,
distribution system condition, maintenance practices, and purchasing decision were characterized
as well.
Using the information from the Volume 1 report, the potential energy, operating cost, and CO2
savings from the implementation of motor system energy efficiency measures and advanced
technologies can be evaluated using a bottom-up approach. This entails evaluating the energy
savings for each system physically sampled and rolling the results up to the national level. The
engineering equations used to estimate energy savings are presented, along with the resulting
energy savings in the ensuing chapter. This section will describe the methods used to roll-up theestimated savings for each individual system to the national level and translate energy savings tocost and CO2 reductions.

Sample Weighting
To estimate the national energy, operating cost, and CO2 impact of a given energy savings
measure, the savings per representative unit (motor system) were expanded to the national level(within the scope of industries assessed) by using a combination of weights at different levels.
The combined weight consists of the reported onsite sample quantity, the motor facility-to-siteweight, and the site-to-national weight. An adjustment factor was employed to ensure the final
subsector specific electricity consumption aligns with the 2014 Manufacturing Energy
Consumption Survey (MECS) (U.S. EIA 2014) and 2012 Commercial Building Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS) (U.S. EIA 2012) estimates. The details of the weighting
techniques employed can be found in the Volume 1 report, including Appendix B. With thismethod, the obtained energy saving estimates for each sample motor system can be multiplied by
the corresponding combined weights and summed to the national level to determine the national
impact.
Reduction in electricity consumption from motors in the scope of MSMA are expressed asgigawatt-hours (GWh) and can be used to estimate the resulting operating cost savings and CO2
reduction by applying U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) cost information and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) CO2 multipliers, respectively. In the following
subsections, the regional electricity price and the method employed to quantify the CO2 emission
reduction are described.

Electricity Prices
For each installed motor system physically sampled, the marginal electricity price was assigned
for the census division in which the motor system was located. The marginal electricity price21

better captures the incremental cost savings associated with the change in energy use resulting
from an energy saving action rather than average electricity prices. However, the average
electricity price can be used to estimate the current costs associated with operation of the motor
system.
In this analysis, the marginal electricity prices were applied to the incremental change inelectricity consumption associated with the energy saving measures considered to determine thecost savings. The annual electricity prices in 2020 were derived for each census division using
data from the latest Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Typical Bills and Average Rates reports (EEI
2020a, 2020b). The resulting evaluation of the cost savings potential is more accurate because it
accounts for regional variability in electricity costs.
For both the industrial and commercial sectors, the electricity prices were calculated using themethodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2019). The EEI data were used to estimate bothmarginal energy charges and marginal demand charges. Each EEI utility in a region was
assigned a weight based on the number of consumers it serves in a specific sector.
Table 1 and Table 2 show the 2020 average and marginal electricity prices for each geographic
area by sector.
Table 1: Average and Marginal industrial electricity prices in 2020
Geographic Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

New England Census Division
Middle Atlantic Census Division
East North Central Census Division
West North Central Census Division
South Atlantic Census Division
East South Central Census Division
West South Central Census Division
Mountain Census Division
Pacific Census Division

Average2020$/kWh
0.148
0.057
0.082
0.090
0.089
0.074
0.068
0.085
0.115

Marginal
2020$/kWh
0.145
0.049
0.082
0.091
0.087
0.074
0.070
0.077
0.106

22

Table 2: Average and Marginal commercial electricity price in 2020
Geographic Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

New England Census Division
Middle Atlantic Census Division
East North Central Census Division
West North Central Census Division
South Atlantic Census Division
East South Central Census Division
West South Central Census Division
Mountain Census Division
Pacific Census Division

Average2020$/kWh
0.182
0.132
0.111
0.105
0.110
0.131
0.097
0.113
0.167

Marginal
2020$/kWh
0.185
0.136
0.110
0.110
0.118
0.145
0.098
0.120
0.177

Weighted national marginal electricity prices were derived based on the geographic distributionof the motor population. The resulting marginal industrial electricity price is $0.084/kWh, andthe marginal commercial electricity price is $0.135/kWh. These values were used to estimate
cost savings in this report.
The national average industrial and commercial prices were developed using a similar method.
The resulting prices used in this report are $0.086/kWh and $0.13/kWh for the industrial andcommercial sectors, respectively. The average prices are used when presenting current motor
system operating costs.

CO2 Emission Calculation
The CO2 emission reductions were evaluated from the reduced electricity consumption of theassessed motor installed base, as shown in equation 1. Site CO2 emissions were estimated using
an emission intensity factor published by the EPA (U.S. EPA 2019) based on a marginal
analysis. Note that the estimated CO2 emission reduction includes the line losses related toelectricity transmission.
𝑀𝑡𝐶𝑂2 = 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑀𝑆𝑀𝐴 × 𝐶𝑂2 𝑘𝑊ℎ(Equation 1)
Where:
𝑀𝑡𝐶𝑂2= CO2 emission reduction, metric tons

elecMSMA = electricity consumption savings from annual motor operations, kWh

𝐶𝑂2 𝑘𝑊ℎ = 7.09 x 10-4 metric tons of CO2 per kWh23

Payback Period Analysis
The payback period (PBP) refers to the time it takes a consumer/business owner to recover the
implementation cost for a measure through the resulting cost savings. It is calculated as shown inequation 2.
𝑃𝐵𝑃 =∆ 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
∆ 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
(Equation 2)

Where:𝑃𝐵𝑃= payback period, year

∆ 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

= the cost of measures taken to improve the current motor efficiency∆ 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = difference in annual average operating cost between the two
scenarios (before and after implementation of measures to improvethe current motor efficiency)
The cost-effectiveness of measures taken or adopted to improve the motor energy efficiency wasdetermined at a subsector basis by aggregating the minimum payback period defined by each site
sample in the MSMA survey (weighted by the site to the national weight).
The payback period is expressed in years. Based on the equipment cost (labor costs are notconsidered) and the operating cost per motor system assessed, if the obtained calculated payback
period is less than the minimum payback period acceptable for the facility, then the measure isconsidered cost-effective for that facility.

Cautions in Interpreting Results
As stated in the Volume 1 report, the estimates obtained in this study were based on a statisticalsampling of commercial and industrial facilities. These estimates are associated withuncertainties from different sources, including both sampling errors (equal chance to overstate
and to understate the value of interest) and non-sampling errors (systematically overestimate orunderestimate the value of interest, which cannot be identified easily). These uncertainties will
carry over to the savings estimates presented here. To understand and quantify the uncertainties
associated with the MSMA estimates, please refer to Appendix B in the Volume 1 report.

24

Energy, Cost, and CO2 Reduction Opportunities
This section shows the opportunity for potential energy, cost, and CO2 savings associated with
implementation of motor system energy efficiency measures and advanced technologies. The
following opportunities are analyzed:
•

•

•

•
•
•

Early Replacement with Premium Efficiency Motors
o Premium Efficiency Motors
o Cost Effective Early Replacement with Premium Efficiency
Improved Load Control/Matching with Conventional Technologies
o Implementation of Variable Frequency Drives on Variably Underloaded Motor
Systemso Cost Effective Implementation of Variable Frequency Driveso Right Sizing Motors in Constant Underloaded Motor Systems
Adoption of Advanced Technologies
o Constant Load Systems
o Variable Load Systems
Improved Conditions of Distribution Systems
Rewind Losses
V-belts to Cog Belts

Early Motor Replacement with Premium Efficiency Motors
Regulations require that the majority of 1–500 hp motors sold in the U.S. must meet Premium
Efficiency performance levels. These levels are defined based on NEMA MG1 Table 12-12; formore information on Premium Efficiency motors, see the DOE’s Premium Efficiency Motor
Selection and Application Guide (McCoy and Douglass, 2014). While some motors are exempt
from this regulation, most motors surveyed for the Volume 1 report, if bought new today, would
be required to meet Premium Efficiency performance levels.
Compared to the energy efficiency of the current installed motor base, Premium Efficiency
performance levels exceed current energy efficiency levels at each horsepower range. The
current motor efficiency of the industrial and commercial base by size range is compared to theefficiency levels of Premium Efficiency in Table 3.
Table 3: Energy efficiency of the installed base compared to the Premium Efficiency performancelevel by horsepower range. Premium Efficiency levels are for 4-pole, open enclosure motors.
Motor Size
Bin

Average Efficiency
of Industrial Installed
Base (%)

Average Efficiency ofCommercial Installed
Base (%)[1.0, 6.0)83

82

Premium
Efficiency
Performance Level(%)
86.4–90.1[6.0, 21.0)

89

89

89.2–93.1[21.0, 51.0)

92

91

92–94.7[51.0, 101.0)

9392

94.1–95.925

Motor Size
Bin

Average Efficiency
of Industrial Installed
Base (%)

Average Efficiency ofCommercial Installed
Base (%)[101.0, 201.0)

9393

Premium
Efficiency
Performance Level(%)
94.5–96.2[201.0, 501.0)[501.0,1,001.0)[1,001.0,
2,001.0)[2,001.0,
5,001.0)[5,001.0, inf)

93

94

94.5–96.2

93

94

-

92

95

-

86

95

-

91

N/A

-

While US regulations generally disallow new inefficient general-purpose motors (1-500 hp) frombeing sold, and several high efficiency motor technologies have emerged and are commerciallyavailable (as will be discussed later in this report), Premium Efficiency motors normally only
replace inefficient motors as they fail. As shown in Figure 2, about 10% of industrial andcommercial motors are older than 20 years. Further, the age of a large percentage of industrial
and commercial motors was undeterminable. The inability to identify the age of the motor can be
attributed to many reasons, including illegible nameplates due to wear or some other age-induced
reason. In some instances, installation of the motor preceded the employment of staff at thefacility that could identify the motor’s vintage.

Figure 2: Age of installed motor base for industrial (left) and commercial (right) motors from theVolume 1 report. UTC stands for “unable to collect.”

This section evaluates energy, CO2 emissions, and operating cost savings associated withreplacing lesser efficiency motors with Premium Efficiency AC motors.
Premium efficiency motors
The energy efficiency level for Premium Efficiency motors was taken from NEMA MG-1
Table 12-12. The average energy efficiency level for each horsepower size across poles andenclosure types was used to determine the energy savings associated with replacing motors with
their Premium Efficiency counterpart. When a motor size in the MSMA inventory fell between
26

two motor sizes on NEMA MG-1 Table 12-12, the Premium Energy performance level wasinterpolated using the two nearest sizes.
Energy savings associated with early retirement and upgrading motors were calculated using
equation 3.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 × (1 −𝜂𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)(Equation 3)
Where:
Current electricity consumption = electricity consumption for the motor systems as estimated inthe Volume 1 report𝜂𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡= energy efficiency of current motor= energy efficiency of replacement motor

Table 4 shows the energy savings for upgrading the existing installed motor base to Premium
Efficiency motors. Upgrading to Premium Efficiency motors would result in a 2.8% reduction
in industrial motor system energy consumption and CO2 emissions, corresponding to over
15,000 GWh/yr and over $1.3 billion in electricity cost savings. In the commercial sector,
upgrading to Premium Efficiency motors would result in a 3.2% reduction in energy
consumption and CO2 emissions, corresponding to nearly 17,000 GWh/yr and $2.3 billion/yr inenergy and cost savings. Any efficiency impacts from Premium Efficiency motors having lower
slip, resulting in slightly higher speed compared to standard motors, is not accounted for, but formost systems, including those with VFDs, there would be no impact.
Table 4: Energy savings associated with upgrading existing motors to Premium Efficiency motors

Industrial
Commercial
Total

Energy Savings (GWh/yr)

CO2 Savings (MMT/yr)

15,571
16,87732,448

11.0
12.0
23.0

% Motor System
Energy and/or
CO2 Savings
2.8
3.2
3.0

Cost Savings(million $/yr)
1,314
2,278
3,592

Exploring the energy savings further, Figure 3 and Figure 4 break down the energy savings bysize range for the industrial and commercial sectors, respectively. The resulting energy savings
are influenced by two factors: (1) the electricity consumption of the installed base within the size
range, and (2) the specific energy efficiency improvement for the size. The greatest savings
opportunity in the industrial sector is for 201–501 hp and 21–50 hp motors, with the 6–21 hp and
51–101 hp range also having a considerable opportunity. In the commercial sector, the greatest
savings opportunity is for motors in the 6–21 hp range, with the 1–6 hp and 21–50 hp range
showing significant savings. Also shown is a theoretical minimum energy consumption achieved
from increasing motor efficiency to 100% (meaning no energy losses across the motor). Thisvalue is unattainable, as eliminating all energy losses, like stray or thermal losses, will require27

materials that do not exist. However, the comparison to the minimum energy consumption shows
the progress made with Premium Efficiency motors towards eliminating all energy losses.

Figure 3: Comparison of current annual energy consumption with energy consumption achieved byreplacing less efficient motors with Premium Efficiency motors and the minimum motor systemenergy consumption requirement in the industrial sector, by size range.

28

Figure 4: Comparison of current annual energy consumption with energy consumption achieved byreplacing less efficient motors with Premium Efficiency motors and the minimum motor systemenergy consumption requirement in the commercial sector, by size range.

Cost-effective early replacement
The cost-effectiveness of replacing the installed base of motors with Premium Efficiency motors
wherever a current motor’s energy efficiency is below Premium Efficiency levels was evaluated.
As part of the motor system assessments conducted for this study, facilities were asked for theirrequired simple economic payback for capital projects. This value was used for each facility
assessed in conjunction with the national average industrial and commercial marginal electricity
to determine whether upgrading to a Premium Efficiency motor was cost-effective. To
understand the extent to which cost reductions to Premium Efficiency motors would realize
additional cost-effective savings (based on the cost effectiveness defined by the Payback Period
Analysis detailed in the Methods section), the cost of Premium Efficiency motors (as determinedusing RS Means) was reduced to 75%, 50%, 25%, and < 25% of current costs. Note that
Premium Efficiency motors can cause a higher inrush current compared to older, less efficient
motors, so in some cases breakers need to be resized, or a higher wire size is required, but thosecosts are not included in this analysis. The results are shown in Figure 5.

29

Current Prem
Eff cost
75% of current
Prem Eff cost
50% of current
Prem Eff cost
25% of current
Prem Eff cost
<25% of current
Prem Eff costs*

Industrial(GWh/yrsavings)

Commercial(GWh/yrsavings)

2,430

1,997

2,795

2,812

4,511

5,098

7,999

8,158

15,571

16,877*Additional savings associated with reducing the cost of a Premium Efficiency motor to a negligible value

Figure 5: Cost-effectiveness of replacing existing motors with Premium Efficiency motors where theenergy efficiency of the current motor is below the Premium Efficiency level. Savings in a given row
include those from the rows above.

At current costs, only 16% (2,430 GWh/yr) of the total industrial sector energy savings potential(15,571 GWh/yr) and 12% (1,997 GWh/yr) of the total commercial sector (16,877 GWh/yr)
associated with upgrading to Premium Efficiency motors is cost-effective. Reducing costs to
75% of current costs would only achieve an additional 2% and 5% of the potential in theindustrial and commercial sectors, respectively. However, achieving 50% cost reductions would
realize an additional 11% and 14% of Premium Efficiency savings for the industrial andcommercial sectors, respectively.
Summary
In the industrial sector, replacing lesser energy-efficient motors with their Premium Efficiency
counterpart would lead to 15,571 GWh of electricity savings, corresponding to $1.3 billion incost savings and 11 MMT CO2 reduction annually. Sixteen percent of these savings are costeffective at current costs.
In the commercial sector, replacing lesser energy efficient motors with Premium Efficiency
motors would lead to 16,877 GWh of electricity, 12 MMT of CO2, and $2.3 billion of electricity
cost reductions. At current costs, 12% of these savings are cost-effective.
Substantial incentives to lower the costs of Premium Efficiency motor technologies are needed tomake early retirement of motors cost-effective. In the industrial sector, reducing costs to 25% of
current costs would make approximately 57% of the technical potential energy savings costeffective. In the commercial sector, reducing costs to well below 25% of current costs is needed
to make 50% of the technical potential energy savings cost-effective.

Improved Load Control/Matching with Conventional Technologies
Motor systems experience significant energy losses at low load factors if not controlled properly.
This is particularly true for fluid systems (e.g., pump, fan/blower, compressed air). In this report,
the load factor of the motor system is defined as the ratio of the operating output power to thefull load output power. When operating at low load factors (demarcated in this report at 40%),30

the energy efficiency of the motor system will be much lower than the best efficiency point of
the system.
Two factors contribute to the lower efficiency at lower loads: (1) the physical relationshipbetween energy consumption and load and (2) the energy efficiency of the motor itself at low
loads. For fluid systems, such as pumps, fans, and air or refrigeration compressors, the energy
required to impart more power to the fluid theoretically scales with the third power of the flow
rate. This relationship is due to the affinity laws for fluid systems. For example, reducing theflow rate of a pumping system in half theoretically should only require one-eighth of the rated
input power at full load. However, control systems such as VFDs or a downsized motor are
required to achieve the lower energy requirements. Unfortunately, many motor systems use
throttles, dampers, or bypasses to dissipate the additional fluid power to achieve the lower
system requirements. Additionally, the energy efficiency of the motor begins to decline
dramatically at loads lower than 40%. For example, the energy efficiency of a 100 hp motor may
hover around 95% for load factors greater than 50% but drops to 78% at a load factor of 10%.
For more information on part-load energy efficiency of motor systems, see Continuous Energy
Improvement in Motor Driven Systems and Motor System Tip Sheet # 11: Adjustable Speed Drive
Part-Load Efficiency available on the DOE Advanced Manufacturing Office’s website.
The Volume 1 report revealed that many motor systems operate at loads below design conditions(see Figure 6). Fourteen percent of industrial motor system energy consumption operates atconstant load factors below 0.75, and 45% operate at variable load factors. Similarly, 10% ofcommercial motor system energy consumption operates at constant load factors lower than 0.75,
and 60% operate at variable load factors.
Candidate for right Candidate for VFD
sizingCandidate for right Candidate for VFD
sizingFigure 6: Motor system energy consumption by load factor for industrial (left) and commercial(right) motor systems from the Volume 1 report

Motor systems operating at variable load factors are good candidates for adding a VFD. Motorsystems operating at constant and low load factors are good candidates for reducing the size ofthe motor to be commensurate with the system requirements. In this section, energy, CO2
emissions, and cost savings associated with installing VFDs or downsizing the motor whereappropriate for the installed motor system base are evaluated. In the next section (Adoption of31

Advanced Technologies), savings associated with adopting advanced motor technologies tobetter control and size motors in accordance with their loads are estimated.
Implementation of variable frequency drives on variably underloaded motor systems
When applied properly, VFDs can deliver substantial energy savings to underloaded fluid-power
motor systems. A VFD is a type of motor speed controller that changes the frequency of theelectric current or voltage from 60 hertz to one better aligned with the needs of the system.
Changing the frequency of the electric signal will change the rotational speed of the motor,
which in turn allows the motor output to match the system requirements efficiently.
Per the findings from the Volume 1 report, only 16% of industrial sector motor systems and 4%of commercial sector motor systems are under the control of a VFD. To understand the technicalpotential energy savings, it is important to note that all variably loaded pump, fan, aircompressor, and refrigeration compressor motor systems that are not positive-displacement
would realize energy savings from installation of a VFD. The following motor systems were notconsidered candidates for achieving energy savings through installation of a VFD: any constantload system, reciprocating air/refrigeration compressors, air compressors of an unknown type,positive displacement blowers, fans of an unknown type, unknown driven equipment types,
materials processing motor systems, materials handling motor systems, positive displacement
pumps, pumps of an unknown type, and systems that already have VFDs.
The relationship used to determine the energy savings from implementation of a VFD is shownin equation 4.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 × (1 −

𝐿𝐹 𝑥
)
𝜂𝑉𝐹𝐷

(Equation 4)
Where:
Current electricity consumption = electricity consumption for the motor systems as estimated inthe Volume 1 report
LF = load factor
x = practical relationship for affinity laws: 1 for air/refrigeration compressors; 2.1 for pump andfan systems (PG&E and Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 2011; Vaillencourt, 2005;
Engineered Systems, 2004)
𝜂𝑉𝐹𝐷 = efficiency of VFD; taken to be 97%
In equation 4 a relationship of 2.1 is used for the exponential relationship between load factor
and energy savings rather than the theoretical 3. The theoretical value of 3 is rarely, if ever,achieved in practical applications. The theoretical value is for systems with no static losses andonly frictional losses. Using 2.1 accommodates for the variability in static losses from system tosystem and leads a conservative estimate of the energy savings potential. Using equation 4, thetechnical potential energy, CO2 emissions, and cost savings attributable to installation of VFDs
are shown in Table 5. VFDs could save 44,355 GWh annually in the industrial sector,

32

representing 8% of the sector’s overall electricity consumption for motor systems. Using
marginal electricity rates, this corresponds to a cost savings of $3.7 billion/yr. Similarly, VFDs
could save 68,461 GWh annually in the commercial sector, representing 13% of the sector’s
overall electricity consumption for motor systems. Using marginal electricity rates, thiscorresponds to a cost savings of $9.2 billion/yr.
Table 5: Energy, CO2 emissions, and costs savings technical potential associated with theimplementation of VFDs on variable and underloaded motor systems in the industrial andcommercial sectors

Industrial
Commercial
Total

Motor System
EnergyConsumption(GWh/yr)
546,963
532,024
1,078,987

Energy Savings
from VFDs(GWh/yr)
44,35568,461
112,816

CO2
Reductionfrom VFDs(MMT/yr)
31.4
48.5
80.0

Motor System
Energy/CO2 %Reduction from
VFDs
8
13
11

Energy Cost
Savings from
VFDs
(million $/yr)
3,743
9,241
12,984Cost-effective implementation of variable frequency drives
Given the sizeable technical potential energy savings, an economic analysis was performed tounderstand the cost-effective energy savings potential from installation of VFDs. During the
motor system assessments conducted for this project, facilities were asked to provide the simple
financial payback they seek on energy-saving projects. Using this value and estimates for thecurrent cost of VFDs, the energy savings potential was determined based on the current cost of
VFDs and scenarios where VFD costs dropped to 75%, 50%, 25%, and < 25% of current costs.
The results are shown in Figure 7, and the accompanying underlying estimates are shown in
Table 6. In the industrial sector, 74% of the technical potential is cost-effective at current VFD
costs. In the commercial sector, 45% of the technical potential is cost-effective at current VFD
costs. However, if costs dropped by 25% (to 75% of current levels), then 56% of the technicalpotential would be cost-effective.

Figure 7: Cost-effective energy savings from installation of VFDs at current, 75%, 50%, 25%, and<25% of current costs for the industrial and commercial sectors

33

Table 6: Cost-effective energy savings from installation of VFDs at current, 75%, 50%, 25%, and<25% of current costs for the industrial and commercial sectors. Savings in a given row include
those from the rows above
Industrial(GWh/yr savings)

Commercial(GWh/yr savings)

At current VFD cost

32,89530,59575% of current VFD cost

36,541

38,562

50% of current VFD cost

39,431

47,236

25% of current VFD cost

43,17559,046<25% of current VFD cost*

44,35568,461*Additional savings associated with reducing the cost of the VFD to a negligible value

A deeper investigation into the cost-effectiveness of VFDs reveals that the majority of motor
systems greater than 5 hp would realize cost-effective energy savings at current VFD costs,
whereas VFD costs would have to be reduced substantially to achieve most of the technicalenergy savings potential for smaller motor systems (less than or equal to 5 hp; see Figure 8).
Given that larger motor systems will tend to consume more electricity for a given number ofoperating hours than a smaller motor system and VFD cost per horsepower reduces as the size
increases, this result is expected. It would also explain the low cost-effective potential forcommercial motor systems overall, as 22% of all commercial motor system energy consumption
is for systems under 5 hp.

Figure 8: Cost-effective installation of VFDs under current costs, 75%, 50%, 25%, and <25% of
current costs disaggregated by size range

34

Non-energy savings benefits of VFDs
While this report has focused on energy savings from installation of VFDs on underloaded motor
systems, there are several benefits of VFDs that have not been explored here. Further, there havebeen several advancements in VFDs that have extended their range of function, applicability, andbenefits. Some of these benefits and advances are outlined below.
The advancement of wide bandgap (WBG) materials and their integration into VFDs have thepotential to reduce energy losses and increase the size range of VFDs. The DOE estimates that
WBG drives could reduce electricity consumption by 2%–4%, with potential applicability inchemical and petroleum refining, the natural gas infrastructure, and general industrial
compressor applications like heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems;
refrigeration; and wastewater pumps (U.S. DOE, 2015). Semiconductors are materials that canallow electricity to flow more readily than insulators but less readily than conductors. This
property makes semiconductors extremely useful for fabricating power electronic chips that
control and convert electrical power (i.e., adjust the voltage, current, and frequency as requiredby various types of equipment and applications). A bandgap is a term used for the amount ofenergy needed to release electrons in semiconductor materials so the electrons can move freely,
enabling the flow of electricity (Power America, 2014). WBG semiconductors have bandgaps
significantly greater than those of silicon semiconductors. Electrical current applied to WBG
semiconductors will excite fewer electrons across the gap, enabling superior current control andreducing energy losses. This means 90% of power losses that currently occur during AC to DC
and DC to AC electricity conversion is eliminated with WBG semiconductor powered VFDs
(U.S. DOE, 2013). They also can operate at higher temperatures (300°C versus 150°C), higher
frequencies (10 times), and higher voltages (10 times) than the silicon-based technology. Their
greater thermal tolerance reduces the need for bulky insulation and additional cooling equipment;
hence, their compact design and greater power density compared to silicon-based VFDs.
Commonly used WBG components are gallium nitride (GaN) and silicon carbide (SiC). Other
advantages include improved durability, reliability, and compatibility with high speed,
megawatt-class motors. See the Volume 2 report to learn more about WBG drives, including areview of their supply chains.
Properly installed motors designed for inverter duty reduce wear and overheating of motors.
Motors equipped with VFDs start slowly by ratcheting up the voltage (such as a soft starter),resulting in less mechanical wear and potential overheating of the motor systems. In contrast,
motors without VFDs start with full line voltage, as well as 7 to 8 times the full load amps tostart, generating heat in the motor windings.
All VFDs will also improve a motor’s power factor. Full-wave diode bridge rectifiers in low
voltage VFDs draw current at the peak of the voltage wave that results in a power factor of atleast 0.95. Higher current VFD units typically come with built-in capacitors that monitor the
power factor fluctuation.
VFDs also can lessen the impact on equipment due to fault-induced delayed voltage recovery(FIDVR). FIDVR refers to the unexpected delay in the recovery of voltage to its nominal value
following normal clearing of an electric grid fault (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,

35

2019). The voltages in the sub-transmission and distribution parts of a power system do notrecover promptly to pre-event levels when the system removes the cause of a depression ofvoltages (normally an electrical fault). This is mostly due to a transmission, sub-transmission, or
distribution system fault causing a depression in system voltage for tens of seconds. These delays
could lead to cascading failures, subsequently resulting in large blackouts, and are common toutility distribution systems (but less so in bulk transmission systems). VFDs provide an electricbuffer for short duration faults by drawing from stored electricity in their DC bus capacitors.
Once the fault is cleared and the voltage and current are returned to normal, the previously
described soft-start capabilities of VFDs prevent harmful impacts from inrush current.
Right sizing motors in constant underloaded motor systems
This study estimated energy, CO2 emissions, and cost savings associated with replacing thecurrent motor with a smaller one for systems that operate at constant load factors below 0.75.
The energy savings were calculated using equation 5.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 × (1 − 𝜂𝜂𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦

𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡−𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟)(Equation 5)
Where:
Current electricity consumption = electricity consumption for the motor systems as estimated inthe Volume 1 report𝜂𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦
𝜂𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ−𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟= energy efficiency of current motor= energy efficiency of replacement motor

The energy efficiency of the current motor operating at its load factor was determined by using
part-load energy efficiency tables. The right-sized motor was selected such that it is sized to 75%of the load. This allows for the motor to be able to meet any increases in load without sacrificing
energy efficiency. The energy efficiency of the right-sized motor was selected to meet the
NEMA Premium Efficiency criteria. Some challenges can occur when installing a smaller motor,
such as the need for a new baseplate coupling. In some cases, reducing the size of both the motor
and the driven system (pump/fan/compressor) may be a better solution.
The resulting energy, CO2 emissions, and cost savings are shown in Table 7. The energy savings
are split evenly across industrial and commercial motor systems, with approximately 1,172 GWhannual savings for the former and 1,276 GWh annual savings for the latter. Although this only
represents 0.2% of industrial and commercial motor system energy consumption, using marginal
electricity rates, the resulting cost savings are $98 million and $172 million for industrial andcommercial motor systems, respectively.

36

Table 7: Energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with right sizing constantly underloadedindustrial and commercial motor systems

Industrial
Commercial
Total

Motor System
EnergyConsumption(GWh/yr)
546,963
532,024
1,078,987

EnergySavings from
Right Sizing(GWh/yr)
1,172
1,276
2,448

CO2 Reduction
from Right
Sizing(MMT/yr)
0.8
0.9
1.7

Motor System
Energy/CO2 %Reduction from
Right Sizing
0.2
0.2
0.2

Energy Cost
Savings from
Right Sizing(million $/yr)
99
172
271

Figure 9 shows the energy savings by horsepower size. Largely attributable to the dominance of
motors smaller than 51 hp in the commercial sector, 82% of the savings associated with rightsizing are attributable to motors less than 51 hp. Similarly, largely attributable to the dominanceof motors smaller than 501 hp in the industrial sector, 70% of the savings associated with rightsizing are attributable to motors smaller than 501 hp.

Figure 9: Cumulative annual energy savings associated with right sizing oversized industrial andcommercial motor systems by horsepower size range

Summary
Overall, improved load control/matching through installation of VFDs or right-sizing oversized
motors using conventional technologies can save more than 115,264 GWh/yr, equating to morethan 81 MMT CO2 and $13 billion per year across the industrial and commercial sectors, as
shown in Table 8. Seventy-four percent of the technical potential associated with VFDs in theindustrial sector is cost-effective at current costs. In the commercial sector, 45% of the technicalpotential is cost-effective at current VFD costs. Labor costs are not included in this analysis.

37

Table 8: Energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with the installation of VFDs on variably
underloaded industrial and commercial motor systems or right sizing constantly underloadedindustrial and commercial motor systems

SectorMotor
SystemEnergyConsumption(GWh/yr)

Energy Savings
from Improved
Load Control/
Matching(GWh/yr)Industrial
Commercial
Total

546,963
532,024
1,078,987

45,527
69,737
115,264

CO2 Savings
fromImproved
Load Control/
Matching(MMT/yr)
32.2
49.4
81.7

Motor System
Energy/CO2 %Reduction from
Improved Load
Control/
Matching
813
11Energy Cost
Savings from
Improved Load
Control/
Matching(million $/yr)
3,841
9,413
13,254

Both are well-known energy efficiency best practices for motor systems. Continuing existing
policies, such as utility incentives for VFDs, will continue to increase adoption of VFDs. Other
policies or financial assistance that incentivize early replacement of older inefficient motors with
Premium Efficiency motors coupled with a VFD can further support achievement of the energy
savings opportunity from better load control/matching. In the future, incentives for purchasing
entire systems certified as being energy efficient, such as those through the Extended Motor
Product Label, will also increase adoption of efficiency motor systems.

Adoption of Advanced Technologies
Where Premium Efficiency sets a performance minimum, advances in motor technologies have
led to the availability of motors that can exceed Premium Efficiency performance levels while
also delivering the benefits of VFDs. These technologies include Permanent Magnet (PM),
Switched Reluctance (SR), Synchronous Reluctance (SynRM), and Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Reluctance (PM SynRM). Additionally, Copper Rotor (CR) motors offer efficiency
improvements but not the benefits of VFDs. These motor technologies are more efficient thanPremium Efficiency motors, particularly at low load factors. Additionally, PM, SynRM, and
PM SynRM motors require a controller to operate, thereby making them variable speed capable.
SR motors do not need a controller but have inherent load controller capabilities. See theVolume 2 report for more information on these technologies and their performance benefits.
For use in this report, the energy efficiency improvement of the motor (not the entire motor
system) above Premium Efficiency for PM, SR, SynRM, PM SynRM, and CR motors wasestimated based on extensive literature review. Table 9 shows the nominal full load energy
efficiency values. Energy efficiency levels could not be determined for some size ranges ofadvanced technologies. It was conservatively assumed that the advanced motor technology underconsideration is not commercially available in these sizes (as of the writing of this report).

38

Table 9: Premium Efficiency full load energy efficiency values and additional improvement with
Permanent Magnet (PM), Switched Reluctance (SR), Synchronous Reluctance (SynRM),
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Reluctance (PM SynRM), and Copper Rotor (CR) motors used inenergy savings analysis

1–5Premium(%)
86.4–90.1

6–20

89.2–93.1

Energy Efficiency Improvement above Premium at Full Load
PM
SR
SynRM
PM SynRM
CR
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1.5
3.2
3
1.5
1.9
1
1.5
2.3
1.2
1.5

21–50

92–94.7

1.0

2

0.8

1.1

-

51–10094.1–95.9

1.0

1

0.7

0.1

-

101–200

94.5–96.2

0.7

1

0.6

0.1

-

201–500

94.5-96.2

0.8

-

0.6

-

-

Size (hp)

Figure 10 compares the partial load energy efficiency of PM, SR, SynRM, and PM motors with
Premium Efficiency motors, demonstrating the additional benefits at part load for these advanced
technologies. Note that Figure 10 only demonstrates the energy efficiency across the motor,
however further (and more substantial) energy savings are achieved via the speed reduction inaccordance with the partial load.

Figure 10: Partial load energy efficiency of Permanent Magnet, Switched Reluctance, Synchronous
Reluctance, and Permanent Magnet Synchronous Reluctance motors compared with partial load
efficiencies of Premium Efficiency motors

In this section, the energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with the adoption of advanced motor
technologies (PM, SR, SynRM, PM SynRM, and CR motors) is evaluated. Savings are only39

estimated for the size ranges of the installed stock for which efficiency levels could bedetermined (see Table 10).
Table 10: HP size ranges for advanced motor technologies considered in analysis
Technology
Constant load - size
range evaluated (hp)
Variable load - size range
evaluated (hp)

PM

SR

SynRM

PM
SynRM

CR

1–500

1–200

1–500

1–200

1–20

1–500

1–200

1–500

1–200

-

The analysis is subdivided into two sections, savings for constant load systems and variable loadsystems.
Constant load systems
Table 11 shows the energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with upgrading constant load
motors with advanced technologies. The savings are a combination of one-for-one replacementof existing motors that operate at constant loads greater than 75% of full load (using equation 3)
and right sizing motors that operate at constant loads less than 75% of full load and replacing
them with an appropriately sized advanced motor technology (using equation 5). The improved
efficiencies are taken from Table 9. For context, the current energy consumption for industrial
and commercial motor systems operating at constant loads greater than 75% of full load is117,472 GWh and 118,579 GWh, respectively. The current energy consumption for industrial
and commercial motor systems operating at constant loads less than 75% of full load is25,942 GWh and 37,547 GWh, respectively.
Table 11: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with replacing constant load motors
with advanced technologies
PM

SR

SynRM

PM
SynRM

CR

Energy savings(GWh/yr)≥75%<75% w/ rightsizingEnergy Savings(GWh/yr)
CO2 Emissions(MMT/yr)
Cost Savings($M/yr)Energy Savings(GWh/yr)
CO2 Emissions(MMT/yr)
Cost Savings($M/yr)≥75%

Industrial
4,940

5,013

4,492

4,097

2,040

3.50

3.55

3.18

2.90

1.45

415

423

377

346

173

1,259

1,038

1,158

842

390

0.89

0.74

0.82

0.60

0.28

98

86

89

70

32

6,749

5,385

Commercial
7,479

7,882

6,398

40

PM

SR

SynRM

<75% w/ rightsizing

CO2 emissions
5.30
5.59
4.54
(MMT/yr)
Cost savings
1,078
1,131
924
($M/yr)Energy Savings
2,366
2,353
2,105
(GWh/yr)
CO2 emissions
1.68
1.67
1.49
(MMT/yr)
Cost savings
335
334
299
($M/yr)Note: Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

PM
SynRM

CR

4.78

3.82

974

780

2,012

1,619

1.43

1.15

287

235

Owing to its availability across the largest size range of advanced motor technologies analyzed
and its greater improvement over all other motor technologies in the 1-5 hp size range, PM
motors offer the largest savings opportunity for constant load systems in both the industrial andcommercial sectors.
Variable load systems
The energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with improved load control using an advanced
motor technology with a VFD was determined for PM, SR, SynRM, and PM SynRM motors.
Since CR motors do not require a VFD to operate and therefore do not naturally realize energy
savings in variable load systems (unless a VFD is selected for the purpose of load control), they
are not considered in this analysis. All motor systems operating at variable load were included,with the following exceptions: any constant load system, reciprocating air/refrigeration
compressors, air compressors of an unknown type, positive displacement blowers, fans of an
unknown type, unknown driven equipment types, materials processing motor systems, materials
handling motor systems, positive displacement pumps, and pumps of an unknown type.
Some of the variable load systems may or may not already be fitted with a VFD. For PM,
SynRM, and PM SynRM systems already on a VFD, analyses were performed to determine theenergy savings associated with replacing the existing motor with an advanced technology andkeeping the existing VFD in place. The savings equation used is shown in equation 6 where𝜂𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 is the efficiency of the current motor and 𝜂𝐴𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 is the efficiency of the advanced
motor.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 (1 −𝜂𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡)
𝜂𝐴𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑(Equation 6)
Where:
Current electricity consumption = electricity consumption for the motor systems as estimated inthe Volume 1 report𝜂𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡= energy efficiency of current motor

41

𝜂𝑎𝑣𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑= energy efficiency of advanced motor

For SR systems, the use of an SR motor negates the need for a VFD. Savings arise from both the
improvement of the motor efficiency and the elimination of the losses across the VFD. The
savings equation used is shown in equation 7, where 𝜂𝑉𝐹𝐷 is the efficiency of the VFD that isbeing removed.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 (1 −𝜂𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 × 𝜂𝑉𝐹𝐷)
𝜂𝐴𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑(Equation 7)
The energy efficiency of the advanced motor technology is based on the average load factor andtaken from Figure 10.
For variable systems not on a VFD but that can be retrofitted with one, energy savings for PM,
SyRM, and PM SynRM were determined using equation 4. For SR systems, equation 4 was usedwithout the 𝜂𝑉𝐹𝐷 term since SR motors do not need a VFD.
Two savings summaries are presented in Table 12 and Table 13. Table 12 shows the savings
associated with applying advanced motor technologies to applicable variable load systems
already fitted with a VFD. Table 13 shows the savings associated with applying advanced motor
technologies with a VFD to applicable variable load systems that are not already fitted with a
VFD. For context, the current energy consumption for variably loaded industrial and commercial
motor systems that are already on a VFD or cannot use a VFD is 174,616 GWh and
156,930 GWh, respectively. The current energy consumption for variably loaded industrial andcommercial motor systems without a VFD is 53,345 GWh and 154,668 GWh, respectively. Notethat the energy consumption values, and the savings presented in Table 12 and Table 13, are only
for the motor size ranges shown in Table 10.
Table 12: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded systems that are currently fitted with a VFD or cannot use a VFD
Industrial
Energy Savings (GWh/yr)
CO2 Emissions (MMT/yr)

PM
4,463
3.16

SR
5,296
3.76

SynRM
4,105
2.91

PM SynRM
3,135
2.22

Cost Savings ($M/yr)

377

457

347

269

Commercial
Energy savings (GWh/yr)
4,768
7,999
4,267
4,135
CO2 emissions (MMT/yr)
3.38
5.67
3.03
2.93
Cost savings ($M/yr)
643
1,080
575
560
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed capable.
Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

42

Table 13: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded systems not currently fitted with a VFD
Industrial

Energy Savings(GWh/yr)
CO2 Emissions(MMT/yr)
Cost Savings ($M/yr)

Prem. Eff.
w/VFD

PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

34,03034,351

24,712

34,351

23,613

24.36

17.52

24.35

16.74

2,898

2,076
Commercial

2,898

1,983

Energy savings
66,392
67,567
67,69367,28164,090(GWh/yr)
CO2 emissions
47.90
47.99
47.70
45.44
(MMT/yr)
Cost savings ($M/yr)
8,806
8,886
8,770
8,428
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed-capable.
For comparison, the savings associated with implementing a Premium Efficiency motor with a VFD isshown. Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Other benefits of advanced motor technologies
Innovations in materials for motor technologies continue to be made and offer benefits beyond
energy savings, with some of these benefits potentially compensating for modest energy savingsin certain applications. These innovations and their potential are discussed here.
Improved conductors, such as carbon nanotube (CNT) or superconducting materials, offer better
electrical and thermal properties than existing copper and aluminum winding materials. As aresult, CNT windings can operate at higher frequencies and exhibit reduced material heating.
CNT is also oxidation and corrosion resistant. CNTs will result in fewer failures and need forrewinds because of their high flex fatigue resistance. Additionally, with a much lower weight(1/15 of copper, 1/4 of aluminum) but higher strength, CNT wires could replace heavier andmechanically weaker copper and aluminum windings in the future. However, CNTs have only
been proven at the molecular scale, and have not yet operated in laboratory-scale cables (andsubsequently, commercial-scale applications) (U.S. DOE, 2018).
Improved insulation materials can mitigate the effects of higher switching frequencies andvoltage ramp rates that can accelerate device failure. These materials are produced from polymer
tapes under high-pressure processing methods that reduce the incidents of defects. Resistive
coatings are applied on both sides of the polymer tape, shielding defects from the fields that leadto partial discharge and device failure. In addition to less failure, energy savings of 5%–10% are
predicted for silicon carbide converter-fed motor systems.
High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) motors (>1,000 hp) offer a 50% volume reduction
and 60% loss reduction compared to conventional motors of the same rating. These motors arelightweight because these materials can achieve very high flux densities, eliminating the need for43

additional components and windings. The superconductivity removes/lessens the resistive losses,
increases efficiency, and delivers energy savings (Schiferl et al., 2008).
Ultra-efficient and power dense motors combine the line-start capability of induction motors
with the energy efficiency of PM motors. The result of these “hybrid” motors is a lighter (30%),
smaller in volume (30%), and more efficient motor than Premium Efficiency motors (a 30%
reduction in motor losses as compared to Premium Efficiency motors). These motors aim to
combine the ease of installation and ease of use attributes of industrial induction motors with the
low loss and small size and weight advantages of PM motors (achieved by reducing the amountof active material used). They can be started across the line or operated from a standard drive
without the need for a rotor position feedback device. These motors employ a starting cage to therotor of the PM motor to achieve these benefits. They could be applicable for and replace almost
90% of existing commercial and industrial applications; specifically, a wide range of line-startand variable speed applications with motor ratings from 20–500 hp (Melfi et al., 2013; U.S.
DOE, 2011).
Soft magnetic materials, such as Metal Amorphous Nanocomposite materials (MANCs), canwithstand higher speeds (higher frequency) without experiencing the same amount of thermal
losses as their existing magnetic steel counterparts (such as silicon steels). These materials canbe used to produce rotor cores and low energy ferrite magnets instead of rare earth permanent
magnets. MANCs have higher resistivity, and therefore, do not heat up as much, resulting in low
power loss at high frequencies. This leads to smaller size motors for the same power density or
higher power density. Another advantage is that efficient MANCs can enable the usage ofrelatively lower cost and energy permanent magnets because MANCs act as a soft magnet tobegin with (Simizu et al., 2018).
Volume 2 addresses topics such as rare-earth magnets that impact the widespread adoption ofadvanced motors.
Summary
Where available, advanced motor technologies offer energy, CO2, and cost saving benefits formost motor systems observed. For constant load systems, they offer improved efficiency for the
motor. For variable load systems, they offer improved efficiency and improved load control. A
summary of the combined savings potential for constant and variable load systems for eachadvanced motor technology considered in the report is shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Energy, cost, and CO2 savings potential from adoption of advanced motor technologies

Permanent Magnet
Industrial
Commercial
Switched ReluctanceIndustrial

Electricity
Savings(GWh/yr)

Cost Savings(million$/yr)

CO2 Savings(MMT/yr)

45,01482,1803,788
10,862

31.91
58.27

36,059

3,042

25.57

44

Electricity
Savings(GWh/yr)
85,927

Cost Savings(million$/yr)

Commercial
11,484
Synchronous ReluctanceIndustrial
44,105
3,711
Commercial
80,051
10,568Permanent Magnet Synchronous ReluctanceIndustrial
31,6882,668
Commercial
76,985
10,249Copper Rotor
Industrial
2,430
205
Commercial
7,004
1,015
Note: See Table 10 for the size ranges considered for each advanced technology type.

CO2 Savings(MMT/yr)
60.92
31.27
56.76
22.47
54.58
1.72
4.97

PM motors offer the greatest savings benefits across both sectors. In the industrial sector,
adoption of PM motors would reduce motor system energy consumption by 8%. In thecommercial sector, adoption of PM motors would reduce motor system energy consumption by
15%. Additionally, the non-energy benefits of PM designs, such as higher power density, would
be realized. Upgrading to SR motors offers similar but slightly less savings than PM motors
across both sectors. However, while these motors are easier to manufacture (see the Volume 2report), they make significantly more noise than their AC or PM counterparts.

Conditions of Distribution Systems
Distribution systems convey the energized fluid (e.g., compressed air) from the motor driven
equipment (e.g., the air compressor) to the load (e.g., a pneumatic actuator). Figure 11
schematically shows the section of the motor system considered to be the distribution system forthe purposes of this report.

Figure 11: Position of distribution system within the motor system. The distribution system does
not include the controller, motor, transmission, or driven equipment.

The energy efficiency of these distribution systems is often overlooked when designing motor
driven systems. Many times, this is unintentional, as the distribution system in a facility predates
the current motor driven system utilizing it. As a result, excessive distances, dead ends,
unnecessary changes in pipe/duct size, excessive bends or elbows, and other suboptimal
configurations are often present. Once designed, maintaining distribution systems to minimize
losses can be an arduous task, especially if it is not done systematically. For example, leaks incompressed air lines can occur frequently and lead to substantial energy losses if left uncheckedor unrepaired.

45

When characterizing the installed motor system base, the design and current condition ofcompressed air, pumping, and fan distribution systems were graded using marks of poor, fair,good, or best practice. Sufficient literature was found and complemented with expert
consultation to quantify the potential energy savings associated with improving the current
condition of distribution systems. The grade for a distribution system’s condition was evaluatedthrough visual inspection and determined based on a grading scale. The definitions for grades
were developed by the authors of this report and are summarized in Table 15. Quantifying theenergy savings associated with redesigning a distribution system would require in-depth analysis
and modeling of the losses in the current system. Further, there was no literature known to theauthors that provided a range of possible energy savings/losses associated with poorly designed
distribution systems. As a result, quantifying the energy savings associated with improving thedesign of distribution systems was not considered in this report.

46

Table 15: Grade used to characterize the condition of motor driven system distribution systems andthe energy losses associated with each grade based on literature review and expert consultation
SystemGrade

Grade Description

Range of %EnergyLoss

Condition of
the pump
systemdistributionBestpractice
Good

No leakage observed; where installed,insulation in excellent condition
Minimal leakage observed; where installed,insulation has been maintained; current
maintenance practices appear to be sufficient
Leakage observed but not throughout the plant;
where installed, insulation often found in needof repair; current maintenance practices could
be improved
Many instances of leakage observed; where
installed, insulation in need of repair; noevidence of existing maintenance practices

≤8

Fair

Poor

Condition ofthecompressed
air
distribution

Condition of
the fan air
distribution
system(ducts)Bestpractice

No leaks observed; air is free from moisture

Good

Minimal leaks observed; air is mostly dry

Fair

Leaks observed but not throughout the plant;
moisture is found in the air, but evidence that
air has been dried

Poor

Many instances of leaks observed; no evidence
that air has been dried; age observed; where
installed, insulation in need of repair; noevidence of existing maintenance practices
No air distribution leakage observed; where
installed, insulation in excellent condition
Minimal air distribution leakage observed;
where installed, insulation has been
maintained; current maintenance practices
appear to be sufficient
Air distribution leakage observed but not
throughout the plant; where installed, insulation
often found in need of repair; current
maintenance practices could be improved
Many instances of air distribution leakage
observed; where installed, insulation in need ofrepair; no evidence of existing maintenancepracticesBest
practice
Good

Fair

Poor

Value
Used inAnalysis
(%)
8

8–16
(authors’estimate)
16–24(U.S. EPA,
2013)

12

8–24 water
loss as leaks(Farley etal., 2001)
0–5(expertconsultation)
10–20(expertconsultation)
30–40(expertconsultation)

24

16

5

15

35

60+
60
(expertconsultation)
<5

5

15
(NREL,
2004)

15

25
(NREL,
2004)

25

>40
(NREL,
2004)

40

47

Using these definitions, grades were assigned to characterize the condition of each distribution
system observed. Figure 12 shows the breakdown of grades for industrial and commercial pump,fan, and compressed air distribution systems as reported in the Volume 1 report.
Industrial Pump Systems
Bestpractice
2%

Commercial Pump Systems
Bestpractice
4%Good Fair
9%
6%
Poor
0%

Good
35%
UTC
53%

UTC
81%

Fair
Poor 10%0%

Industrial Air Ducts

Poor
0%

Commercial Air Ducts

Best
practice6%

Bestpractice
1%

UTC
23%
Fair
17%

UTC
42%

Good
59%

Good
24%

Fair
28%
Poor
0%

UTC
8%

Industrial Compressed Air
Systems Bestpractice
3%

Poor
5%
Fair
28%

Good
56%

Best
practice0%Compressed Air Systems
Good
4%

Fair
7%

Poor
4%

UTC
85%

Figure 12: Grades for the condition of industrial and commercial pump, air (air ducts), andcompressed air systems. UTC indicates that the grade could not be collected (“unable to collect”).

When determinable, the majority of industrial distribution systems were graded as being in“good” condition, with “fair” being the next most common condition. Aside from fan system airducts, the condition of the majority of the commercial distribution systems were indeterminable
for a variety of reasons, such as the distribution system being out of view. For air ducts, themajority of systems were in either fair or good condition. Given the low use of compressed air
systems (only 2% of commercial sector motor system energy consumption is for compressed air
systems), improvements to the condition of compressed air distribution systems in commercial
systems would likely lead to minimal energy savings nationwide.

48

Improving condition of distribution systems
With the grades evaluated, the energy savings associated with improving the condition ofcompressed air, pumping, and fan systems from its current state to “best practice,” as qualified inTable 15, was estimated. This subsection focuses only on savings from improvements to the
distribution system itself. The energy savings are shown in Table 16. In the industrial sector,
significant energy savings could be realized from improving compressed air distribution systems.
Improving them to a best practice level could reduce compressed air electricity consumption bynearly 17%, equating to 10,751 GWh, 7.6 MMT of CO2, and $900 million in savings annually.
In the commercial sector, significant energy savings could be realized from improving fan
system distribution systems. Improving them to a best practice level could result in reducing
fan system energy consumption by nearly 8%. This corresponds to savings of 12,935 GWh,
9.2 MMT of CO2, and more than $1.7 billion annually.
Table 16: The energy, CO2, and electricity cost savings technical potential for upgrading industrial
and commercial distribution systems to a best practice level
Annual Savings from Upgrading from Current
Condition to a Best Practice Level

Industrial

Commercial

10,751

1,877

16.9

14.9

7.6
907

1.3
253

Electricity consumption savings (GWh)

4,431

1,504

% of current pump system electricity consumption
CO2 emission reduction (MMT)Electricity cost savings (million $)

3.8
3.1
374

2.8
1.1
203

Electricity consumption savings (GWh)

8,959

12,935% of current fan system electricity consumption
CO2 emission reduction (MMT)Electricity cost savings (million $)Electricity consumption savings (GWh)% of current motor system electricity consumption
CO2 emission reduction (MMT)Electricity cost savings (million $)

8.6
6.4
756
24,141
8.5
17.1
2,037

6.7
9.2
1,746
16,316
6.3
11.6
2,202

Electricity consumption savings (GWh)
Compressed
Air Systems

Pump
Systems

Fan Systems(air ducts)

Total% of current compressed air system electricity
consumption
CO2 emission reduction (MMT)Electricity cost savings (million $)Summary
The industrial sector could realize a 4.4% reduction in energy consumption for motor systems,
and the commercial sector could realize a 3% reduction in energy consumption for motor
systems, if all compressed air, pump, and fan distribution systems (as defined Table 15) were
improved from their current state to “best practice” conditions. This would result in more than
$2 billion in electricity cost savings in each sector and a reduction of 28.7 MMT of CO2 acrossthe two sectors (17.1 MMT CO2 for industry and 11.6 MMT CO2 for commercial buildings).

49

It is speculated that far greater savings could be achieved if distribution systems were designed
such that energy efficiency was prioritized. Unnecessary bends, dead ends, andexpansions/reductions in pipe sizes lead to additional frictional losses that cause the motor driven
systems to consume more energy than necessary. In addition to continued guidance on proper
maintenance of distribution systems, development of guidance to support energy-efficientdesign, especially when adding to an existing distribution system, is needed to reduce thesignificant losses in motor driven distribution systems.

Rewind Losses
Proper maintenance of motor systems is essential for operating a motor at or near design energy
efficiencies. The Volume 1 report characterized the maintenance practices for motor systems. It
was determined that motor rewinds are far less common than other maintenance practices; 4% ofindustrial motors and less than 1% of commercial motors were rewound within the previous two
years from the date of the assessment. For context, the most common maintenance practice for
either sector was belt tightening, with 27% of industrial motors and 18% of commercial motors
having undergone the procedure within the previous two years from the date of the assessment.
When done correctly, rewinding motors can lead to minimal performance degradation. However,improper rewinds can degrade motor efficiency, thereby leading to excessive energy losses.
From the Volume 1 report, 19% of industrial facilities use an accredited 3 service center at leastoccasionally when rewinding motors, and <1% of commercial facilities use them at all. Use of an
accredited center can ensure energy efficiency is maintained when rewinding a motor. For
motors not rewound in accredited service centers, those greater than 40 hp can lose 0.5% of theirenergy efficiency per rewind, while those less than 40 hp can lose 1% per rewind (McCoy andDouglass, 2014). However, as reported in the Volume 1 report, lowest first cost is the mostcommon criteria when considering options for repairing or replacing a failed motor—not energy
consumption. Therefore, facilities are more likely to repair a motor at as low a cost as possible
than they are to find an accredited service center or replace it with a new motor. Rewinds forgeneral purpose motors 50 horsepower and below are generally not cost effective, and these
motors are generally replaced with new Premium Efficiency motors.
In characterizing the installed base, it was determined that motors were rewound on average
1.4 times. The breakdown of rewind occurrences can be seen in Table 17.

3

These were either an accredited Electrical Apparatus Service Association (EASA) or Green Motor Practices Group
motor service center.

50

Table 17: Breakdown of number of rewinds for industrial and commercial motors

Industrial

Commercial# ofRewinds
0
1
2
3
4
5
5+
0
1
2

% of Motors
82.5
11.6
5.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
97.4
1.8
0.8

Given that most facilities do not use an accredited service center, it can be assumed that the
majority of rewound industrial and commercial motor systems experience a degradation inenergy efficiency.
Energy losses from improper rewinds
Using the above criteria for efficiency losses and assuming that motors that were rewound weredone so on average 1.4 times, the energy losses in the commercial and industrial sectors
associated with rewound motors are shown in Table 18.
Table 18: Energy losses associated with improper rewinds of industrial and commercial motors
GWh/yr Loss

% of Motor System
Electricity Consumption

Industrial

7,794

1.4

CO2
Reduction(MMT/yr)
5.5

Commercial
Total

7,351
15,145

1.4
1.4

5.2
10.7

Cost Savings(million $/yr)
658
992
1,650

Figure 13 shows the energy losses by size. Examining the results, the incremental energy losses
for larger motors diminishes, reaching nearly zero for very large motors. In the commercial
sector, energy losses diminish for motors greater than 50 hp, whereas in the industrial sector theenergy losses diminish for motors greater than 500 hp. This could be due to the lower energy
efficiency loss associated with rewinds for larger motors combined with less overall motor
system energy consumption in these size ranges. It should be noted that rewinds for smaller
motors (i.e., less than 20 hp) are usually not cost-effective and not done.

51

Figure 13: Energy losses associated with motor rewinds by size range in the industrial andcommercial sectors

Summary
Although motor rewinds represent a small percentage of motor repairs, improper rewinds canlead to energy efficiency losses. Given that most facilities are not using accredited motor service
centers for rewinds, substantial losses in energy efficiency are likely for rewound motors. In theindustrial sector, it is estimated that nearly 7,800 GWh/yr are lost due to improper rewinds,
correlating to 5.5 MMT of CO2 and $656 million. In the commercial sector, over 7,350 GWh/yr
are lost to improper rewinds, resulting in 5.2 MMT of CO2 emissions and an additional nearly$1 billion in electricity costs.
Advocating the use of accredited service centers when rewinding motors can mitigate further
energy losses. Additionally, promotion of replacing older motors in need of rewind with a
Premium Efficiency motor (or advanced technology, such as a Permanent Magnet motor) can not
only mitigate the energy losses from rewinds but also achieve higher efficiencies than thenominal nameplate energy efficiency of the existing motor.

V-belts to Cog belts
To transmit the motor shaft work to the motor driven equipment, a coupling may be required.
These include belts, gearboxes, and direct shaft couplings. While direct shaft couplings result inminimal to no energy losses, other coupling options do, and the losses can be significant. These
losses could be caused by slippage or friction. However, in many cases, it is not possible todirectly connect the motor shaft to the driven equipment due to geometric factors, such as theneed to change the axis of the rotation or space restrictions. Belts are a common form ofcoupling, with some designs leading to less energy losses than others. Notched andcog/synchronous belts engage with the motor shaft in a more secure manner than standard
V-belts, thereby minimizing losses due to slippage. For more information on the energy savings
benefits from cogged and synchronous belts, see the Advanced Manufacturing Office’s Motor
Tip Sheet #5: Replace V-Belts with Notched or Synchronous Belts.

52

In the Volume 1 report, the types of couplings observed were reported; a summary is shown in
Figure 14 both the industrial and commercial sectors, direct shaft coupling was the mostcommonly observed transmission type. However, V-belts were also commonly observed (4% of
motor counts in the industrial sector and 12% in the commercial sector). Replacing these belts
with synchronous/notched belts would reduce system losses. For some systems, there also may
be opportunities to transition to direct drive for even greater savings. However, as mentioned
above, transitioning to direct drive cannot be assumed to be feasible for all systems.

Industrial

Commercial

Figure 14: Transmission types observed in the industrial (left) and commercial (right) sector bycounts (top) and energy consumption (bottom). UTC (“unable to collect”) indicates that thetransmission type could not be determined.

Upgrading to synchronous/notched belts
Due to their more secure connection, synchronous or notched belts can achieve a 3%
improvement in maximum efficiency over standard V-belts (NREL, 2018). To conservatively
estimate operational efficiencies, this study considered synchronous/notched belts to improveoverall motor system efficiency by 2%. This improvement in energy efficiency was applied to
any current motor system utilizing a V-belt. Note that in many cases, the type of belt could not
be determined. These have been categorized as “belts” in Figure 14 without any specification of
the type of belt. To generate a conservative energy savings estimate, these were not included in
the savings calculations.
Table 19 shows the energy savings associated with upgrading V-belts to synchronous/notchedbelts. Compared to the other savings measures identified in this report, these savings are fairly
modest but would still offset 1.1 MMT/year of CO2 and save industrial and commercial facility
operators $189 million annually.

53

Table 19: Energy savings from upgrading motor system V-belts to cog belts in the industrial andcommercial sectors

SectorIndustrial
Commercial
Total

Energy Savings(GWh/yr)
456
1,116
1,572

% of Motor
SystemElectricity
Consumption
0.1
0.2
0.1

CO2 Reduction(MMT/yr)

Cost Savings(million $/yr)

0.3
0.8
1.1

38
151
189

Summary
The energy savings associated with upgrading V-belts to synchronous/notched belts is456 GWh/year in the industrial sector and 1,116 GWh/year in the commercial sector. The
savings are likely much higher given that the transmission type or belt type could not be
determined for many motors and were therefore excluded from these calculations.
Continued awareness regarding the energy savings benefits associated with cog belts would help
realize the potential energy savings benefits. Additionally, incentive programs to help defray theincreased costs associated with synchronous/notched belts (e.g., installation of a shiv) could
promote their adoption. Further, transitioning to direct drive where possible would lead to evengreater savings.

Savings Estimates by Driven Equipment
In addition to the opportunities already examined, there are others specific to the driven
equipment. This section will identify some of these opportunities and, where possible, quantify
their energy savings potential. The previously examined opportunities will also be presented
again but framed around the driven equipment. The driven equipment types considered arepumps, fans and blowers, air compressors, refrigeration compressors, materials processing, andmaterials handling. Examining motor systems from the perspective of the driven equipment
provides new insight into realizing the energy savings opportunity for motor systems by focusing
on the application and purpose of the motor system.
Additionally, this section summarizes the adoption of several energy management practices
specific to the driven equipment. Implementation of these practices would lead to additionalenergy savings. However, the magnitude of these savings is not calculated here due to a lack of
information needed to carry out the calculation. Collecting the required information was outside
the scope of the motor system assessments conducted.
In this report, we separate savings estimates by driven equipment and specific opportunities
within those systems. New work is being done by DOE to establish efficiency standards forcomplete systems, including the Pump Energy Index (PEI) and Fan Energy Index (FEI).
Pumping systems
Pumping systems were found to consume 21% of industrial motor system energy consumption
and 10% of commercial motor system energy consumption. In addition to the energy, CO2, andcost-saving opportunities already evaluated in this report, load matching opportunities unique to54

pumping systems exist; namely, impeller trimming. This opportunity is evaluated below, and asummary of all measures evaluated in this report for pumping systems is provided. Additionally,
the adoption of specific pump system energy management practices is summarized.
Impeller trimming
For pumping systems that are constantly underloaded, impeller trimming delivers the sameenergy savings as installing a VFD but without the losses across the VFD. Impeller trimming isonly applicable for certain load ranges (it is not recommended for severely underloaded systems)
and is irreversible, meaning the pump will not be able to serve a higher load once the impellers
are trimmed to serve a lower load. Therefore, impeller trimming is only done when there is no
expectation of future increases in pumping load.
Energy savings for trimming impellers were determined using equation 8:
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 × (1 − 𝐿𝐹 𝑥 )(Equation 8)
Where:
Current electricity consumption = pump electricity consumption as estimated in the Volume 1
reportLF= load factorx= practical relationship for affinity laws: 2.1 for pump systems(Vaillencourt, 2005; Engineered Systems, 2004)

Pump systems that were considered candidates for impeller trimming were those constantly
loaded at sub-75% load factors (see U.S. DOE Pumping Systems Tip Sheet #7) and not positive
displacement pumps. There may be some decrease in efficiency in the pump itself that is difficult
to quantify and not taken into consideration with equation 8.
Table 20 shows the energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with trimming candidate pump
impellers. In the industrial sector, impeller trimming can lead to a 1% reduction in pump systemenergy consumption, equating to 3.9 MMT of CO2 and $463 million per year. The savings
opportunity is less in the commercial sector, offering a 0.4% reduction in pump system energy
consumption, equating to 1.4 MMT CO2 and $274 million per year.
Table 20: Energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with pump impeller trimming

Industrial
Commercial
Total

Electricity
Consumption Savings(GWh/yr)
5,493
2,031
7,524

CO2
Reduction(MMT/yr)
3.9
1.4
5.3

% Pump System
Electricity/CO2 Reduction
1.0
0.4
0.7

Cost Savings(million
$/yr)
463
274
738

55

Adoption of energy management practices
In addition to the energy-saving measures evaluated above, the adoption of pump system energy
management best practices was also examined. Specifically, the use of flow meters, theappropriateness of the pump size for the application, and the availability of the pump curve at thefacility were reviewed. The results are shown in Table 21.
Only 26% of industrial and 4% of commercial pumping systems were on a flow meter. This
indicates that the volumetric flow rate of fluids in pumping systems is largely unknown. Without
this knowledge, an understanding of the energy output of the pumping system cannot be directly
calculated but needs to be inferred. Inferred energy output is subject to uncertainty, asassumptions are made in calculations whose veracity may not be known.
In the Volume 1 report, it was found that 84% percent of industrial and 87% of commercial
pumps were evaluated to be appropriately sized for their application. This indicates that facilities
are mostly selecting the correct pump for their needs.
Only 26% of industrial and 3% of commercial pumping systems had their pump curves available
at the facility. The pump curves specify the allowable pressure and flow rate operating points fora pump and the associated energy efficiency for each pair of points. Without this knowledge, one
cannot determine how well the pump is operating with respect to its performance specifications.
Table 21: Adoption of pump system energy management best practices

Is the pump on a flow meter?
Is the pump appropriately sized?
Is the pump curve available at thefacility?

% Yes(Industrial)
26
84

% Yes
(Commercial)
4
87

26

3

Adoption of advanced motor technologies
Additional energy savings for pumping systems can be realized via adoption of advanced motor
technologies. The magnitudes of these are shown in Table 22 (for constant load pumping
systems), Table 23 (for variable load pumping systems that are already fitted with or cannot use
a VFD), and Table 24 (for variable load pumping systems not currently fitted with a VFD but
could be). Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

56

Table 22: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with replacing constant load motors
with advanced technologies on industrial and commercial pumping systems
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

CR<75% w/right
sizing>75%

Industrial
Energy savings
(GWh)

1,350

1,198

1,244

961

442

CO2 savings (MMT)

0.96

0.85

0.88

0.68

0.31

Cost savings ($M)
Energy savings
(GWh)

114

104

105

83

38

334

315

309

254

100

CO2 savings (MMT)

0.24

0.22

0.22

0.18

0.07

Cost savings ($M)

27

26

25

21

8

Commercial
1,547

1,642

1,395

1,439

1,040

CO2 savings (MMT)

1.10

1.16

0.99

1.02

0.74

Cost savings ($M)
Energy savings
(GWh)

209

221

188

194

136

334

135

319

114

63

CO2 savings (MMT)

0.24

0.10

0.23

0.08

0.04

48
21
45
18
Cost savings ($M)
Note: Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

10<75% w/right
sizing>75%

Energy savings(GWh)

Table 23: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial pumping systems that are currently fittedwith a VFD or cannot use a VFD
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

Industrial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

704

1,142

653

511

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.50

0.81

0.46

0.36

Cost savings ($M/yr)

60

97

55

43

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

601

1,137

554

488

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.43

0.81

0.39

0.35

89
164
82
73
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed capable.
Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

57

Table 24: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial pumping systems not currently fitted witha VFD
Premium Eff.
w/VFD
PM w/VFD

SR

SynRM
w/VFD

PM SynRM
w/VFD

Industrial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

9,038

9,106

7,021

9,097

6,823

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

6.46

4.98

6.45

4.84

Cost savings ($M/yr)

762

582

762

566

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)
CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

2,928

2,953

2,967

2,949

2,873

2.09

2.10

2.09

2.04

370
373
369
362
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed-capable.
For comparison, the savings associated with implementing a Premium Efficiency motor with a VFD isshown. Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Summary
A summary of the annual energy and CO2 savings from the industrial and commercial pumping
system measures evaluated is shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. For both sectors,
adoption of advanced technologies (represented by PM motors) offers the greatest source ofenergy, CO2, and cost savings. Installation of VFDs and pump impeller trimming offers
significant energy and CO2 savings, as well. All of these measures are associated with improving
load matching, indicating that this is the greatest source of energy losses in industrial andcommercial pumping systems. When examining the savings opportunities, caution must be taken
when summing the savings opportunities from multiple measures, as one may influence theother. With this caution, industrial and commercial pumping systems could each achieve a 10%–15% reduction in energy, CO2 emissions, and operational costs by upgrading to a more efficient
motor, improving the distribution system, and adopting more VFDs.

58

Figure 15: Annual energy and CO2 savings from measures evaluated for industrial pumping
systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size
ranges shown in Table 10.

59Figure 16: Annual energy and CO2 savings from measures evaluated for commercial
pumping systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within thesize ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 25 shows the information presented in Figure 15 and Figure 16, along with theaccompanying annual cost savings. The annual energy consumption, CO 2 emissions, and costs
for operating industrial and commercial pumping systems are also shown as a point of reference.
Nearly $2 billion and over $1.1 billion of cost savings could be realized in the industrial andcommercial sectors, respectively, with the adoption of VFDs, impeller trimming, pump
distribution systems improvements, and Premium Efficiency motors. Similarly, $965 million and$734 million in the industrial and commercial sectors, respectively, could be saved annually
through the adoption of advanced motor technologies (represented by PM motors).

60

Table 25: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings for industrial and commercial pumping systems forthe measures evaluatedBaseline
Savings estimates
Advanced technology (PM)VFD
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Premium Efficiency motor
upgradeRewindRight sizing
Cogged V-belts

EnergyCO2 Emissions (MMT
(GWh/yr)
CO2/yr)Industrial
115,868
82.2

Cost(million $/yr)
10,081

11,4938.1

965

10,354
5,493

7.3
3.9

870
461

4,431

3.1

372

3,039

2.2

255

1,642
278
35
Commercial

1.16
0.20
0.02

138
23
3

Baseline
52,90737.5
6,878
Savings estimates
Advanced technology (PM)
5,435
3.9
734
VFD
2,884
2.0
389
Impeller trimming
2,031
1.4
274
Premium Efficiency motor
2,006
1.4
271
upgradePump distribution system
1,504
1.1
203
improvements
Rewind736
0.5
99
Right sizing
277
0.2
37
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with operating
industrial and commercial pumping systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken whensumming savings across measures to account for the impact of one measure on another. Savings fromadoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Fan and blower systems
Fan and blower systems were found to consume 21% of industrial motor system energy
consumption and 36% of commercial motor system energy consumption. In addition todetermining and summarizing the energy, CO2, and cost-saving opportunities already evaluatedin this report attributable to fan and blower systems, the adoption of specific fan and blower
system energy management practices is also summarized.

61

Adoption of energy management practices
In addition to the energy-saving measures evaluated above, the adoption of fan and blower
system energy management best practices was also examined. Specifically, the use of flow
meters, the appropriateness of the fan size for the application, and the availability of the fancurve at the facility were reviewed. The results are shown in
Table 26.
Only 18% of industrial and 3% of commercial fan and blower systems were on a flow meter.
This indicates that the airflow rate of the fan and blower systems is largely unknown. Without
this knowledge, an understanding of the energy output of the system cannot be directly
calculated but needs to be inferred. Inferred energy output is subject to uncertainty, asassumptions are made in calculations whose veracity may not be known.
Only 36% of industrial and 42% of commercial fan and blower systems had their fan/blower
curves available at the facility. The fan/blower curve specifies the allowable pressure and flowrate operating points for a fan/blower and the associated energy efficiency for each pair of points.
Without this knowledge, one cannot determine how well the fan/blower is operating with respect
to its performance specifications.
Table 26: Adoption of fan and blower system energy management best practices% Yes (Industrial)
18
72% Yes (Commercial)
386

Is the fan on a flow meter?
Is the fan appropriately sized?
Is the fan curve available at the36
42
facility?
Note: Fans certified by the Air Movement Control Association (AMCA) has information on the
fan performance specific to applications.

Adoption of advanced technologies
Additional energy savings for fan and blower systems can be realized via adoption of advanced
motor technologies. The magnitudes of these are shown in Table 27 (for constant load fan andblower systems), Table 28 (for variable load fan and blower systems that are already fitted withor cannot use a VFD), and Table 29 (for variable load fan and blower systems not currently fittedwith a VFD but could be). Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table
10.
Table 27: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with replacing constant load motors
with advanced technologies on industrial and commercial fan and blower systems
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

CR

Industrial>75%

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

1,494

1,639

1,343

1,337

730

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

1.06

1.16

0.95

0.95

0.52

Cost savings ($M/yr)

124

135

111

110

61

62

<75% withright sizing

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

325

345

292

278

144

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.23

0.24

0.21

0.20

0.10

Cost savings ($M/yr)

26

27

23

22

11

Commercial>75%<75% withright sizing

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

4,678

4,779

3,926

4,148

3,576

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

3.32

3.39

2.78

2.94

2.54

Cost savings ($M/yr)
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

693

709

587

619

531

1,294

1,357

1,124

1,185

1,013

0.92

0.96

0.80

0.84

0.72

149

129

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

163
170
141
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 28: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial fan and blower systems that are currently
fitted with a VFD or cannot use a VFD
Industrial
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

805

1,372

743

616

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.57

0.97

0.53

0.44

Cost savings ($M/yr)

72

123

66

55

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

1,852

4,420

1,651

1,789

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

1.31

3.13

1.17

1.27

276
678
246
269
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed capable.
Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.
Table 29: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial fan and blower systems not currently
fitted with a VFD
Industrial

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

Premium Eff.
w/VFD

PM w/VFD

SR

SynRM
w/VFD

PM SynRM
w/VFD

10,788

10,865

9,329

10,853

9,071

63

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

7.70

6.61

7.69

6.43

Cost savings ($M/yr)

887

770

886

748

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)
CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

19,474

19,667

20,208

19,634

19,577

13.94

14.33

13.92

13.88

2,420
2,485
2,416
2,410
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed-capable.
For comparison, the savings associated with implementing a Premium Efficiency motor with a VFD isshown. Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Summary
A summary of the energy and CO2 savings associated with the measures evaluated that are
relevant to fan and blower systems are shown in Figure 17 (industrial) and Figure 18(commercial). For both sectors, load control via use of VFDs or adoption of advanced
technologies (represented by PM motors), improvement to air distribution systems, andupgrading to a higher efficiency motor (either Premium Efficiency or PM) offer the greatest
opportunities for energy and CO2 emissions reduction. When examining savings opportunities,
caution must be taken when summing the savings opportunities from multiple measures, as one
may influence the other. With this caution, industrial and commercial fan and blower systems
could each achieve a 20% reduction in energy, CO2 emissions, and operational costs byimproving load control, improving the distribution system, and upgrading to a more
efficient motor.

64

Figure 17: Annual energy and CO2 savings from measures evaluated for industrial fan and blower
systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size
ranges shown in Table 10.

65Figure 18: Annual energy and CO2 savings from measures evaluated for commercial fan andblower systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within thesize ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 30 shows the information presented in Figure 17 and Figure 18, along with theaccompanying annual cost savings. The annual energy consumption, CO 2 emissions, and costs
for operating industrial and commercial fan systems are also shown. Over $2 billion and$5 billion of energy savings in the industrial and commercial sectors, respectively, could be
realized through the improvement of distribution systems, adoption of VFDs, and adoption ofhigher efficiency motors. Similarly, $1.1 billion and $3.8 billion in the industrial and commercial
sectors, respectively, could be saved annually through the adoption of advanced motor
technologies (represented by PM motors).

66

Table 30: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings for industrial and commercial fan and blower
systems for the measures evaluated
Energy (GWh/yr)

CO2 Emissions(MMT CO2/yr)

Cost (million $)Industry
Baseline

112,94280.1

13,724
13,489

9.7
9.6

1,153
1,133

8,959

6.4

753

2,986

2.1

251

1,610
329
271
Commercial
192,085

1.1
0.2
0.2

135
28
23

136.2

24,971

9,826

Savings estimates
VFD
Advanced technology (PM)Air duct distribution system
improvements
Premium Efficiency motor
upgradeRewindRight sizing
Cogged V-belts
Baseline

Savings estimates
Advanced technology (PM)27,942
19.5
3,772
VFD
18,87513.4
2,548
Air duct distribution system
12,9359.2
1,746
improvements
Premium Efficiency motor
6,336
4.5
855
upgradeRewind
2,678
1.9
362
Cogged V-belts
1,064
0.8
144
Right sizing
554
0.4
75
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with operating
industrial and commercial fan and blower systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken
when summing savings across measures to account for the impact of one measure on another. Savings
from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Compressed air systems
Compressed air systems were found to consume 12% of all industrial motor system energy and
1% of all commercial motor system energy. In addition to the energy-saving opportunities
evaluated above, additional significant opportunities exist from eliminating inappropriate uses ofcompressed air, installing a sequencer on multi-compressor systems, and reducing thecompressed air pressure set point. These opportunities are evaluated below. Additionally,
qualitative opportunities are summarized, including using outside air for the compressor intake,conditioning the incoming air, and implementation of various compressed air strategies. The
adoption of these opportunities is summarized, but energy savings are not quantified due toinsufficient information to conduct a full evaluation.

67

Eliminate inappropriate uses of compressed airCompressed air is very expensive to generate and is sometimes considered a utility itself (alongwith electricity, water, and natural gas). Further, it is inherently an inefficient energy consuming
process due to unavoidable thermodynamic losses in the compression process. Given its cost andinefficiencies, it is advantageous from an energy and cost standpoint to only use compressed air
when and where needed. However, perhaps due to its convenience and availability within aplant, applications that could be better served by a fan, blower, mechanical device, or moreenergy-efficient system are served by compressed air. These inappropriate uses include
personnel cooling, drying, cabinet cooling, open blowing, and open handheld blowguns.
Energy, CO2, and cost savings for eliminating inappropriate uses of compressed air were
determined using equation 9:
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠= 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 × 𝐿𝐹 × (1

𝜂𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟
× % 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠

) × 𝑂𝐻 × 𝐶𝐹

(Equation 9)
Where:
Rated power = nameplate size of the compressor, hp
LF= load factor, %𝜂𝑒𝑓𝑓,𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟= energy efficiency of motorOH= annual facility operational hours, hours/yrCF= cycling factor, %% to inappropriate uses = fraction of compressed air going to inappropriate uses as determined
during the motor system assessments
The percent of compressed air going to inappropriate uses was collected during the motor systemassessments. A list of inappropriate uses was presented to facility staff (see Appendix C in theVolume 1 report for the list), and they were asked to select which were present at the facility,
along with the percent of compressed air going to these uses. In equation 9, energy savings
associated with eliminating inappropriate uses were assumed to scale linearly with the percent ofcompressed air for these uses.
The energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with eliminating inappropriate compressed air usesin the industrial and commercial sectors are shown in Table 31. Largely due to the relatively
small contribution from compressed air to commercial motor system energy consumption, theenergy savings in the industrial sector are significantly larger than in the commercial sector. In
the industrial sector, savings are estimated to be approximately 8,900 GWh of electricity,686.3 MMT of CO2, and $752 million annually. In the commercial sector, savings are estimated tobe nearly 1,600 GWh of electricity, 1.1 MMT of CO2, and $212 million annually.
Table 31: Energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with eliminating inappropriate uses ofcompressed air

Industrial
Commercial
Total

Electricity
Consumption Savings(GWh/yr)

CO2 Emissions
Reduction(MMT/yr)

8,913
1,572
10,485

6.3
1.1
7.4

% Compressed Air
SystemElectricity/CO2
Reduction (%)
1.6
0.3
1.0

Energy Cost
Savings(million $/yr)
752
212
964

Install sequencers
Whenever multiple compressors are operating at part load in the plant, those compressors can besequenced using sequencer controls. This will unload the compressors when the compressed air
demand is lower, thereby operating the baseline compressor at a higher load. This eliminates low
partial load energy efficiencies of the compressors. Zahlan and Cadmus Group Inc. (2017)
achieved a 13% reduction in energy consumption by cascading load/unload controls to sequence
two 100 kilowatt (kW) air compressors compared to unsequenced air compressors. Greater
energy savings (30%) were found when VFDs were used on both air compressors.
To be conservative, a 13% reduction in overall energy consumption for unsequenced air
compressors was used to determine energy savings potential from air compressor sequencing. A
simple load/unload strategy was considered for unsequenced air compressors. When facilities
had more than one air compressor, staff were asked if they were sequenced. Those that were notsequencing were considered eligible for realizing energy savings from sequencing.
The energy savings associated with sequencing air compressors are shown in Table 32. While
the savings in the commercial sector are quite small (due to low energy consumption forcompressed air systems in the commercial sector), the savings in the industrial sector is over
1,000 GWh of electricity, 0.7 MMT of CO2, and $86 million.
Table 32: Energy savings associated with sequencing currently unsequenced air compressors

Industrial
Commercial
Total

Electricity
Consumption Savings(GWh/yr)

CO2
Reduction
(MMT)

1,015
65
1,080

0.72
0.05
0.77

% Compressed Air
SystemElectricity/CO2
Reduction (%)
1.6
0.5
1.4%

Energy Cost
Savings(million $/yr)
86
995

Reduce compressed air pressure set point
Compressed air set pressure points are often set higher than needed. Many facilities simply keep
the compressor set to its default pressure setting. The pressure is reduced at the point of use to69

match the load requirements. This leads to unnecessary energy consumption, CO2 emissions, andcosts. Facilities whose compressed air pressure set points are much higher than the highest
pressure required by a process are good candidates for reducing the pressure set point. As part of
the MSMA, the current air pressure setting was observed, and facility staff were asked thepressure requirements for the highest load. Per best practice, the compressed air pressure set
point should be approximately 10% higher than that of its highest pressure end use.
Energy savings were calculated by finding the difference between the current pressure set point
and the highest pressure required by the processes for each air compressor inventory, as shown inequation 10. If the highest required pressure was lower than the set point by more than 15%, thenit was assumed that the set point could be reduced such that it remains 15% greater than thehighest demand in the plant. Fifteen percent was used rather than 10% in order to develop moreconservative savings estimates.
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠
𝐷𝑃 + 𝑃𝑘𝑊( 𝑝𝑃 0 ) 𝑘𝑁 − 1
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 × 0.746 𝐻𝑃 × 𝐿𝐹 × 𝐶𝐹 × 𝑂𝐻𝑖=(
) × (1 −)𝜂𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝐷𝑃 + 𝑃 𝑘−1( 𝑐𝑃 0 ) 𝑘𝑁 − 1𝑖𝑘−1(Equation 10)
Where:
Rated power = air compressor nameplate size, hp
LF = Load Factor, %,CF = Cycling Factor, %OH = Annual facility operating hours, hrs/yr
𝜂𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟,𝑒𝑓𝑓 = Motor efficiency, %DPp = Proposed discharge pressure, psig; assumed 15% of highest pressure requirement
Po = Atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia
Pi = Inlet pressure, psia
DPc = Current discharge pressure, psig
N = 1.25, assuming a polytrophic efficiency of 80%
k = Ratio of specific heat for air (k = 1.4), no units
The energy, CO2, and energy cost savings associated with reducing air pressure set points areshown in
Table 33. In the industrial sector, reducing air set points could lead to over 850 GWh ofelectricity, 0.6 MMT of CO2, and slightly under $72 million of savings annually. Due to the low
energy consumption for air compressors in the commercial sector, savings are modest for70

commercial air compressors. Better controlling unregulated air demand also leads to substantial
savings, but that analysis was beyond the scope of this report.
Table 33: Annual energy, CO2, and energy cost savings associated with reducing compressed air
set points
Electricity
Consumption Savings(GWh/yr)

CO2
Reduction(MMT/yr)

852
33
885

0.6
0.02
0.6

Industrial
Commercial
Total% Compressed Air
SystemElectricity/CO2
Reduction
1.3
0.3
1.2

Electricity Cost
Savings(million $/yr)72
476

Adoption of energy management practices
Compressed air system energy management strategies offer additional savings opportunities. The
adoption of some of these strategies was evaluated through the motor system assessments.
However, quantifying the energy, cost, and CO2 emissions savings was not possible due to theneed to collect more data than what was within the scope of the assessment. The adoption ofthese compressed air system energy management strategies and their benefits are detailed inTable 34.
Table 34: Adoption of compressed air energy management best practices
Compressed Air Energy
Management Strategy

Industrial(% yes)Commercial(% yes)

Outside air not used for intake,but it could be used

22

36

Intake is located away fromcontaminants

65

98

Incoming air is filtered

71

100

Have controls been adjusted inlast year?

27

0

Does the system utilize apressure and/or flow controller?

19

15

Utilize production or schedulebased pressure setbacks?

3

8

Were leaks heard during the
MSMA assessment?

31

10

Are controls adjusted after
repairing leaks?

80

Benefit
Drawing outside air lowers compression
energy requirements when outside air iscolder than inside air.
Drawing cleaner intake air increases thesystem’s energy efficiency.
Compressing cleaner air increases thesystem’s energy efficiency.
Periodic adjustments of controls allow
the system to meet current demands
energy efficiently.
Usage of a pressure and/or flow
controller allows the system to meetcurrent demands energy efficiently.
Setbacks reduce energy wasted togenerate compressed air when it is notneeded.
Leaks are a major source of energy loss
in systems.
Pressure and flow requirements may belowered after fixing leaks, thereby
reducing energy consumption.

71

Oil free air is more energy intensive togenerate, and avoiding its unnecessary
generation saves energy.
A preventive maintenance program
ensures the system continues to operate
as expected.
A preventive maintenance program
ensures energy losses are minimized.

Is oil free air used where notrequired?

92

Do you have a preventive
maintenance program?

69

79

35

0

79

53

Proper inspection ensures proper system
operation and performance.

35

38

Energy efficiency assessments ensurethat the system is continuously
improving its energy efficiency.

Do you have an ongoing leakmanagement program?
Does the facility periodicallyinspect end use filters, checkregulators, and lubricators?
In the past five years has there
been an energy efficiency
assessment of the system?

Adoption of advanced motor technologies
Additional energy savings for compressed air systems can be realized via adoption of advanced
motor technologies. The magnitudes of these are shown in Table 35 (for constant load
compressed air systems), Table 36 (for variable load compressed air systems that are alreadyfitted with or cannot use a VFD), and Table 37 (for variable load compressed air systems not
currently fitted with a VFD but could be). Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges
shown in Table 10.
Table 35: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with replacing constant load motors
with advanced technologies on industrial and commercial compressed air systems>75%<75% with rightsizing

PM
SynRM
SynRM
Industrial

PM

SR

CR

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

211

206

201

175

23

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.15

0.15

0.14

0.12

0.02

Cost savings ($M/yr)
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

19

18

18

15

2

7

8

6

5

1

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

Cost savings ($M/yr)

1

1

1

1

0

Commercial>75%<75% with rightsizingEnergy savings(GWh/yr)

236

259

201

217

181

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.17

0.18

0.14

0.15

0.13

Cost savings ($M/yr)
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

33

37

28

30

25

5

5

4

4

4

72

0.00

0.00

0.00

1
1
1
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

11

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.00

0.00

Table 36: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial compressed air systems that are currently
fitted with a VFD or cannot use a VFD
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

Industrial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

293

439

271

165

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.21

0.31

0.19

0.12

Cost savings ($M/yr)

25

37

23

14

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

76

94

66

73

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.05

0.07

0.05

0.05

11
14
10
11
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed capable.
Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.
Table 37: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial compressed air systems not currently
fitted with a VFD
Premium Eff.
w/VFD

PM w/VFD

SR

SynRM
w/VFD

PM SynRM
w/VFD

Industrial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

7,875

7,950

4,757

7,978

4,366

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

5.64

3.37

5.66

3.10

Cost savings ($M/yr)

687

397

690

363

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)
CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

1,189

1,202

1,124

1,201

1,060

0.85

0.80

0.85

0.75

174
165
174
155
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed-capable.
For comparison, the savings associated with implementing a Premium Efficiency motor with a VFD isshown. Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

73Summary
A summary of the energy and CO2 savings associated with the measures evaluated that are
relevant to compressed air systems are shown in Figure 19 (industrial) and Figure 20(commercial). For both sectors, use of VFDs, improvements to compressed air distribution
systems, and elimination of compressed air leaks offer the greatest opportunities for energy andCO2 emissions reduction. A caveat is made here: on most compressors below about 25 hp, themain drive motor also drives the cooling fan, and VFDs may cause overheating problems. In
larger compressed air systems with varying demand, best practice is to split the load among
multiple compressors. When doing that, and when properly sized, normally only one compressor
is operated with a VFD. This implementation consideration has not been taken into account inthis report.
When examining the savings opportunities, caution must be taken when summing the savings
opportunities from multiple measures, as one may influence the other. With this caution,industrial and commercial compressed air systems could each achieve a 40%–50% reduction inenergy, CO2 emissions, and operational costs by adopting more VFDs, eliminating inappropriate
uses, and improving the distribution system.

Figure 19: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for industrial compressed air
systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size
ranges shown in Table 10.

74Figure 20: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for commercial compressed air
systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size
ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 38 shows the information presented in Figure 19 and Figure 20, along with theaccompanying annual cost savings. The annual energy consumption, CO 2 emissions, and costs
for operating industrial and commercial compressed air systems are also shown. Over$2.5 billion and $750 million of energy savings could be realized through the improvement of
distribution systems, adoption of VFDs, and elimination of inappropriate uses in the industrial
and commercial sectors, respectively.

75

Table 38: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings for industrial and commercial compressed air
systems for the measures evaluated
CO2 Emissions(MMT CO2/yr)

Cost(million $)Industrial
63,613

45.1

5,534

10,751

7.6

903

10,408
8,913
8,461
1,539

7.4
6.3
6.0
1.1

874
749
711
129

1,015
927
852
10
9

0.7
0.7
0.6
0.01
0.01

85
78
72
1
1

Commercial
12,564

8.9

1,633

2,110

1.5

285

1,877

1.3

253

1,572
1,519
285
174

1.1
1.1
0.2
0.12

212
205
38
23

Energy (GWh/yr)

Baseline
Savings estimates
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
VFD
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Advanced technology (PM)Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
Install sequencer
RewindReduce pressure set point
Cogged V-belts
Right sizing
Baseline
Savings estimates
VFD
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Advanced technology (PM)Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindInstall sequencer
65
0.05
9
Cogged V-belts
51
0.04
7
Reduce pressure set point
33
0.02
4
Right sizing
30.00
0Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with operating
industrial and commercial compressed air systems is also shown for context. Caution must be taken whensumming savings across measures to account for the impact of one measure on another. Savings fromadoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Refrigeration systems
Refrigeration systems were found to consume 12% of industrial motor system energy
consumption and 48% of commercial motor system energy consumption. In addition todetermining and summarizing the energy, CO2, and cost-saving opportunities already evaluatedin this report attributable to refrigeration systems, the adoption of specific refrigeration system76

energy management practices is also summarized. These numbers include only the motors
driving the chillers and no other motors in the refrigeration system (e.g., those driving heatrejection fans, cooling tower fans, air-cooled condenser fans). These other motor systems areincluded in the fan and blower, pump, and other driven equipment breakouts.
Adoption of energy management practices
Refrigeration system energy management strategies offer additional savings opportunities overwhat have already been evaluated in this report. The adoption of some of these strategies wasevaluated through the motor system assessments. However, quantifying the energy, cost, andCO2 emissions savings was not possible due to the need to collect more data than what waswithin scope of the assessment. The adoption of these refrigeration energy management
strategies is detailed in Table 39,
Table 40, and Table 41.
In general, the adoption rate for the energy management strategies evaluated is low forcommercial systems. This offers a great opportunity to reduce building loads given the large
amount of building energy used for refrigeration systems. For example, only 38% of commercial
facilities stated that their maintenance protocols met manufacturer’s requirements, and only 29%
have developed a strategy to efficiently meet refrigeration demand. For industrial refrigeration
systems, only 3% of facilities stated that they adjust set points based on production schedules(although 40% state that they have a control strategy for efficiently matching supply withdemand).
Table 39: Adoption of energy management best practices for industrial and commercial
refrigeration systems
Refrigeration System Energy Management
Has a control strategy been developed to efficiently match supply withdemand?
Does the facility meet or exceed compressor manufacturer requirements
for maintenance?
Does the facility have a preventive maintenance program?
Does the system utilize floating head or condenser temp reset?
Have any controls been adjusted in the last year?
Do the suction set points get adjusted based on production schedules?
In the past five years, has there been an energy efficiency assessment
performed on the system?

% Yes(Industrial)% Yes(Commercial)

40

29

75

38

85
15
44
3

38
10
35
21

37

15

The question in Table 40 queried if the facility has explored raising the chilled water set pointtemperature. Over three-quarters of commercial and industrial facilities have not explored thiscommon energy efficiency practice. Often, chillers run at the set point set by the manufacturer.
This is often much lower than needed, and consequently they consume more energy than needed.

77

Table 40: Potential to raise the suction temperature of industrial and commercial refrigeration
systems. UTC stands for “unable to collect.”
Has the feasibility of raising%
the suction temperature (e.g.,chilled water temperature) of Commercial
the system been recently
explored, and at what
Industrial
frequency?

No

Permanently

Seasonally

Shift-Wise

UTC

76

1

0

18

5

78

12

3

0

7

Table 41 indicates that most commercial facilities (65%) either do not inspect the heatexchangers on their refrigeration systems or do not know if they do. Conversely, 74% ofindustrial facilities do inspect them. Fouled heat exchangers will lead to less heat transfer andsubsequently need to consume more energy to achieve the same cooling load. Given the large
fraction of commercial building motor system energy consumption, these findings indicate apotentially large opportunity for energy savings.
Table 41: Frequency of heat exchanger inspection for industrial and commercial refrigeration
systems. UTC stands for “unable to collect.”%
How often are heatexchangers inspected?

Weekly Monthly

Yearly> One Year

Do NotUTC
Know

Commercial

0

19

15

1

57

7

Industrial

28

15

27

4

16

10

Adoption of advanced motor technologies
Additional energy savings for refrigeration systems can be realized via adoption of advanced
motor technologies. The magnitudes of these are shown in Table 42 (for constant load
refrigeration systems), Table 43 (for variable load refrigeration systems that are already fittedwith or cannot use a VFD), and Table 44 (for variable load refrigeration systems not currently
fitted with a VFD but could be). Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in
Table 10.

78

Table 42: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with replacing constant load motors
with advanced technologies on industrial and commercial refrigeration systems
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

CR

Industrial>75%

Energy savings (GWh/yr)

229

273

208

221

149

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.16

0.19

0.15

0.16

0.11

Cost savings ($M/yr)

20

24

18

19

13

43

47

40

38

8

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.01

4

4

3

3

1

Energy savings (GWh/yr)<75% withright sizing CO2 savings (MMT/yr)
Cost savings ($M/yr)

Commercial>75%

Energy savings (GWh/yr)

974

1,155

833

902

572

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.69

0.82

0.59

0.64

0.41

Cost savings ($M/yr)

138

158

117

126

87

697

535

0.49

0.38

118

95

719
840
648
Energy savings (GWh/yr)<75% with
0.51
0.60
0.46
right sizing CO2 savings (MMT/yr)
122
140
110
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 43: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial refrigeration systems that are currently
fitted with a VFD or cannot use a VFD
Industrial
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

354

261

330

161

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.25

0.19

0.23

0.11

Cost savings ($M/yr)

31

25

29

16

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

1,246

1,259

1,098

863

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.88

0.89

0.78

0.61

158
158
139
107
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed capable.
Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

79

Table 44: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial refrigeration systems not currently fittedwith a VFD
Premium Eff.
w/VFD

PM w/VFD

SR

SynRM
w/VFD

PM SynRM
w/VFD

Industrial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

6,329

6,431

3,605

6,423

3,352

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

4.56

2.56

4.55

2.38

Cost savings ($M/yr)

562

328

561

306

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)
CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

42,80043,744

43,39543,496

40,580

31.01

30.77

30.84

28.77

5,842
5,864
5,811
5,502
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed-capable.
For comparison, the savings associated with implementing a Premium Efficiency motor with a VFD isshown. Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Summary
A summary of the energy and CO2 savings associated with the evaluated measures attributable torefrigeration systems are shown in Figure 21 (industrial) and Figure 22 (commercial). For both
sectors, improved load control via use of VFDs and/or advanced motor technologies constitutes
the greatest opportunities for energy and CO2 emissions reduction. Greater adoption of VFDs
could lead to as much as a 15% reduction in industrial refrigeration system energy consumption
and an 18% reduction in commercial refrigeration system energy consumption. Adoption ofPremium Efficiency motors could lead to another 3% energy reduction in the industrial andcommercial refrigeration systems each. When examining the savings opportunities, caution must
be taken when summing the savings opportunities from multiple measures, as one may influence
the other.

80

Figure 21: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for industrial refrigeration systems.
Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size ranges shownin Table 10.

81Figure 22: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for commercial refrigeration
systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size
ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 45 shows the information presented in Figure 21 and Figure 22, along with theaccompanying annual cost savings. The annual energy consumption, CO 2 emissions, and costs
for operating industrial and commercial refrigeration systems are also shown. Six billion dollars
and $833 million of energy savings could be realized with the adoption of VFDs alone in thecommercial and industrial sectors, respectively.

82

Table 45: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings for industrial and commercial refrigeration
systems for the measures evaluated
Energy(GWh/yr)

CO2 emissions(CO2/yr)

Cost(million$/yr)Industrial
Baseline
Savings estimates

68,007

48.2

5,917

VFD
Advanced technology (PM)Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindCogged V-belts

9,869
7,056
1,935
944
41

7.0
5.0
1.4
0.7
0.03

829
593
163
79
3

Right sizing

26

0.02

2

Commercial
251,522178.3

32,69846,684

33.1

6,302

Baseline
Savings estimates
Advanced technology (PM)VFD
44,59331.6
6,020
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
7,452
5.3
1,006
Rewind
3,491
2.5
471
Right sizing
436
0.3
59
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with operating
industrial and commercial refrigeration systems is also shown for context. Caution must be taken whensumming savings across measures to account for the impact of one measure on another. Savings fromadoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Materials processing
Materials processing systems were found to consume 29% of industrial motor system energy
consumption and less than 1% of commercial motor system energy consumption. Materials
processing systems are motor systems used for processing materials, such as extruders, grinders,and hydraulics.
Adoption of advanced motor technologies
Additional energy savings for materials processing driven equipment can be realized via
adoption of advanced motor technologies. The magnitudes of these are shown in Table 46 (forconstant load material processing systems) and in Table 47 (for variable load refrigeration
systems that are already fitted with or cannot use a VFD). Savings are for motor systems within
the size ranges shown in Table 10.

83

Table 46: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with replacing constant load motors
with advanced technologies on industrial and commercial materials processing systems
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

CR

Industrial>75%

Energy savings (GWh/yr)

1,326

1,377

1,202

1,132

527

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.94

0.98

0.85

0.80

0.37

Cost savings ($M/yr)

111

117

101

96

45

434

207

412

171

62

0.31

0.15

0.29

0.12

0.04

31

18

30

15

5

Energy savings (GWh/yr)<75% withright sizing CO2 savings (MMT/yr)
Cost savings ($M/yr)

Commercial>75%

Energy savings (GWh/yr)

26

27

25

26

2

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.00

Cost savings ($M/yr)

3

3

3

3

0

5

5

0.00

0.00

1

1

6
6
5
Energy savings (GWh/yr)<75% with
0.00
0.00
0.00
right sizing CO2 savings (MMT/yr)
1
1
1
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 47: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial materials processing systems that are
currently fitted with a VFD or cannot use a VFD
PM

SR

SynRM

PM SynRM

Industrial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

1,884

1,650

1,738

1,320

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

1.34

1.17

1.23

0.94

Cost savings ($M/yr)

154

136

142

109

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

29

33

27

28

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

4
5
4
4
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed capable.
Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

84Summary
A summary of the energy, CO2, and cost-saving opportunities already evaluated in this reportattributable to materials processing systems is provided in Figure 23 (industrial) and Figure 24(commercial). For both sectors, upgrading to Premium Efficiency motors constitutes the greatest
opportunity for energy and CO2 emissions reduction. Upgrading to more efficient motors could
lead to as much as a 3% reduction in industrial materials processing energy consumption and a
5% reduction in commercial systems. When examining the savings opportunities, caution must
be taken when summing the savings opportunities from multiple measures, as one may influence
the other.

Figure 23: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for industrial materials processing
systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size
ranges shown in Table 10.

85

Figure 24: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for commercial materials
processing systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within
the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 48 shows the information presented in Figure 23 and Figure 24, along with theaccompanying annual cost savings. The annual energy consumption, CO 2 emissions, and costs
for operating industrial and commercial refrigeration systems are also shown. Four hundred andforty-one million dollars and nearly $11 million of energy savings could be realized with the
adoption of more efficient motors alone in the commercial and industrial sectors, respectively.

86

Table 48: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings for industrial and commercial materials processing
systems for the measures evaluatedBaseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor
upgradeRewindAdvanced technology (PM)Right sizing
Cogged V-belts

Energy(GWh/yr)Industrial
155,783

CO2 Emissions(CO2/yr)

Cost(million $/yr)

110.5

13,553

5,232

3.7

439

2,254
3,644
455
88

1.6
2.6
0.3
0.1

189
306
38
7

Commercial
1,549

Baseline
1.1
201
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor
78
0.1
upgrade11
Advanced technology (PM)
60
0.04
8
Rewind22
0.02
3
Right sizing
3
0.00
0Cogged V-belts
10.00
0Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with operating
industrial and commercial materials processing systems are also shown for context. Caution must be
taken when summing savings across measures to account for the impact of one measure on another.
Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in
Table 10.

Materials handling
Materials handling systems were found to consume 4% of industrial motor system energy
consumption and 2% of commercial motor system energy consumption. Materials handlingsystems are motor systems used for transporting materials, such as conveyors.
Adoption of advanced motor technologies
Energy savings for materials handling systems can be realized via adoption of advanced motor
technologies. The magnitudes of these are shown in Table 49 (for constant load materials
handling systems) and Table 50 (for variable load materials handling systems that are alreadyfitted with or cannot use a VFD). Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in
Table 10.

87

Table 49: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with replacing constant load motors
with advanced technologies on industrial and commercial materials handling systems

>75%

PM
SynRM

CR

PM

SR

SynRM
Industrial

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

260

272

228

229

151

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.18

0.19

0.16

0.16

0.11

Cost savings ($M/yr)

21

22

19

19

12

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

96

94

81

80

66

0.07

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.05

8

8

6

7

5

<75% withright sizing CO2 savings (MMT/yr)
Cost savings ($M/yr)

Commercial>75%

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

4

4

3

4

3

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Cost savings ($M/yr)

0

0

0

0

0

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

7

10

6

7

-

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

-

1

-

<75% withright sizing CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

Cost savings ($M/yr)1
11
Note: Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

Table 50: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings associated with adoption of advanced technologies
and VFDs for variably loaded industrial and commercial materials handling systems that are
currently fitted with a VFD or cannot use a VFD
PM

SR

SynRM
Industrial

PM SynRM

Energy savings(GWh/yr)

315

314

274

264

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.22

0.22

0.19

0.19

Cost savings ($M/yr)

27

27

23

23

Commercial
Energy savings(GWh/yr)

676

702

605

616

CO2 savings (MMT/yr)

0.48

0.50

0.43

0.44

75
78
67
68
Cost savings ($M/yr)
Note: Savings for SR motors do not include a VFD, as these motors are inherently variable speed capable.
Savings are for motor systems within the size ranges shown in Table 10.

88Summary
A summary of the energy, CO2, and cost-saving opportunities already evaluated in this reportattributable to materials handling systems is provided in Figure 25 (industrial) and Figure 26(commercial). For both sectors, upgrading to higher efficiency motors constitutes the greatest
opportunity for energy and CO2 emissions reduction. Upgrading to a more efficient motor (e.g.,
Premium Efficiency or PM) could lead to as much as a 3% reduction in industrial materials
handling energy consumption. Upgrading to an advanced technology (e.g., PM) motor would
lead to a 7% reduction in commercial systems. When examining the savings opportunities,
caution must be taken when summing the savings opportunities from multiple measures, as one
may influence the other.

Figure 25: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for industrial materials handlingsystems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within the size
ranges shown in Table 10.

89Figure 26: Magnitude of energy and CO2 savings opportunities for commercial materials
handling systems. Savings from adoption of advanced technologies are for motor systems within
the size ranges shown in Table 10.
Table 51 shows the information presented in Figure 25 and Figure 26, along with theaccompanying annual cost savings. The annual energy consumption, CO 2 emissions, and costs
for operating industrial and commercial materials processing systems are also shown. Over$54 million and over $69 million of energy cost savings could be realized with the adoption ofPremium Efficiency motors in the commercial and industrial sectors, respectively.

90

Table 51: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings for industrial and commercial materials handlingsystems for the measures evaluated
CO2 Emissions(CO2/yr)

Cost(million $/yr)

Industrial
19,998

14.2

1,740

644

0.5

54

Advanced motor technology (PM)RewindRight sizing
Cogged V-belts

671
311
69
10
Commercial

0.5
0.2
0.05
0.01

56
26
6
1

Baseline
Savings estimate
Advanced technology (PM)Premium Efficiency motor upgrade

9,282

6.6

1,207

686
513

0.5
0.4

93
69

Energy (GWh/yr)

Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade

Rewind129
0.1
17
Right sizing
30.00
0Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with operating
industrial and commercial materials handling systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken
when summing savings across measures to account for the impact of one measure on another.

91Conclusion
U.S. industrial and commercial sectors have realized substantial reductions in motor systemenergy consumption, with the U.S. as a global leader in setting minimum energy performancestandards for motors. This report shows there are still some efficiency gains from existing motor
efficiency levels, and even greater energy savings are achievable from considering the broader
system that begins with electricity coming into the facility and ends with mechanical power
being transmitted to an end-use application. These savings are shown to be realized as a result ofa variety of energy efficiency actions, such as implementation of VFDs, appropriately sizing
each component of the system, eliminating losses within the fluid distribution systems (e.g.,
repairing compressed air leaks), and adoption of advanced technologies.
With the publication of the Volume 1 report, the current state of installed motor systems has
been comprehensively evaluated and documented, allowing for the determination of the potential
energy, cost, and CO2 savings associated with implementation of motor system energy efficiency
measures and advanced technologies. These results are broken out by various factors, such as
driven equipment type and sector.
With the urgent need to decarbonize the U.S. economy, this report targets the largest
opportunities in motor systems. Adoption of the measures and technologies identified would
represent a critical path forward towards cost-effectively decarbonizing the industrial andcommercial sectors.

92

References
10 C.F.R. § 431.25. 2014. Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards forCommercial and Industrial Electric Motors: Final Rule. Federal Register. 79 (103). Accessed
January 4, 2022. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part-431/subpartB/subject-group-ECFR03b7039d87b7cc6/section-431.25.
10 C.F.R. § 431.465. 2016. Pumps energy conservation standards and their compliance dates.
Accessed January 4, 2022. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part431/subpart-Y/section-431.465.
Cole, W. J., D. Greer, P. Denholm, A. W. Frazier, S. Machen, T. Mai, N. Vincent, and S. F.
Baldwin. 2021. “Quantifying the challenge of reaching a 100% renewable energy power system
for the United States.” Joule 5(7): 1732–1748. DOI: 10.1016/J.JOULE.2021.05.011.
Coughlin, K. and Beraki, B. (2019) Non-residential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources
and Estimation Methods.De Almeida, A., J. Fong, C. U. Brunner, R. Werle, and M. Van
Werkhoven. 2019. “New technology trends and policy needs in energy efficient motor systems A major opportunity for energy and carbon savings.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews Pergamon 115: 109384. DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2019.109384.
Dols, J., B. Fortenbery, M. Sweeney, and F. Sharp. 2014. “Efficient Motor-Driven Appliances
Using Embedded Adjustable-Speed Drives.” ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings 9: 90–99. https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2014/data/papers/9-886.pdf.
EEI (Edison Electric Institute). 2020a. Typical Bills and Average Rates Report, Winter 2020.
January 1.
EEI. 2020b. Typical Bills and Average Rates Report, Summer 2020. July 1.
Engineered Systems. 2004. “Beyond The Affinity Laws.” Engineered Systems Magazine
Accessed January 4, 2022. https://www.esmagazine.com/articles/83712-beyond-the-affinitylaws.
Executive Order No. 14057. 2021. 86 Federal Register 70935: Catalyzing Clean Energy
Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability. Washington, D.C. The White House.
Accessed January 4, 2022. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/202127114/catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability.
Farley, M., World Health Organization, Water Sanitation and Health Team, and Water Supply
and Sanitation Collaborative Council. 2001. Leakage management and control: A best practicetraining manual. Geneva PP - Geneva, World Health Organization.
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66893.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2019. Fault-Induced Delayed Voltage Recovery(FIDVR). Accessed January 4, 2022. https://certs.lbl.gov/initiatives/fidvr.html.
McCoy, G. A., and J. G. Douglass. 2014. Continuous Energy Improvement in Motor Driven
Systems - A Guidebook for Industry. Washington, D.C. Washington State University Energy
Program and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/amo_motors_guidebook_web.pdf.

93

McCoy, G. A. and Douglass, J. G. (2014) Premium efficiency motor selection and application
guide—A handbook for industry, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA [Online].
Available athttps://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/amo_motors_handbook_web.pdf.McKane,
A., and A. Hasanbeigi. 2011. “Motor systems energy efficiency supply curves: A methodology
for assessing the energy efficiency potential of industrial motor systems.” Energy Policy 39(10):6595–6607. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.08.004.
Melfi, M. J., R. F. Schiferl, and S. D. Umans. 2013. Ultra-Efficient and Power Dense Electric
Motors for U. S. Industry, United States. DOI: 10.2172/1087908.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. 2021. Accelerating Decarbonizationof the U.S. Energy System. Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press. DOI:
10.17226/25932.
NC State University and NC Clean Energy Technology Center. 2022. Database of State
Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). https://www.dsireusa.org/.
Newkirk, Alex, Prakash Rao, and Paul Sheaffer. 2021. U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor
System Market Assessment: Volume 2: Advanced Motors and Drives Supply Chain Review.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt2k1942nd/qt2k1942nd.pdf.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2004. Better Duct Systems for Home Heating
and Cooling. Accessed January 6, 2022. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/30506.pdf.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2018. Tune-Up Your Fan Systems for
Improved Performance. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70566.pdf.
PG&E and Consortium for Energy Efficiency. 2011. Motor Efficiency, Selection andManagement A Guidebook for Industrial Efficiency Programs, San Franscisco, California.
Accessed April 4, 2022.
https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/incentivesbyindustry/
agriculture/industrial_guidebook.pdf.
Power America. 2014. Wide Bandgap Semiconductors to Increase the Energy Efficiency andReliability of Power Electronics. Accessed January 4, 2022.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/power-america.
Rao, Prakash, Paul Sheaffer, Yuting Chen, Miriam Goldberg, Benjamin Jones, Jeff Cropp, andJordan Hester. 2021. U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment: Volume
1: Characteristics of the Installed Base. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt42f631k3/qt42f631k3.pdf.
Schiferl, R., A. Flory, W. Livoti, and S. Umans. 2008. “High-Temperature Superconducting
Synchronous Motors: Economic Issues for Industrial Applications.” IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications 44: 1376–1384. DOI: 10.1109/TIA.2008.2002219.
Simizu, S., P. R. Ohodnicki, and M. E. McHenry. 2018. “Metal Amorphous Nanocomposite Soft
Magnetic Material-Enabled High Power Density, Rare Earth Free Rotational Machines.” UnitedStates, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Magnetics Group. 54. DOI:
10.1109/TMAG.2018.2794390.

94

The White House. 2021. Fact Sheet: President Biden Renews U.S. Leadership on World Stage at
U.N. Climate Conference (COP26). The White House. Accessed January 4, 2022.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/01/fact-sheet-presidentbiden-renews-u-s-leadership-on-world-stage-at-u-n-climate-conference-cop26/.
U.S. Congress. 2020. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R.133 - 116th Congress.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133. Accessed 4 January 2022.
U.S. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011. Ultra-Efficient and Power-Dense Electric
Motors. Accessed January 6, 2022.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2013/11/f4/electric_motors.pdf.
U.S. DOE. 2013. Wide Bandgap Semiconductors: Pursuing the Promise. Washington, D.C.
Accessed January 4, 2022.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2013/12/f5/wide_bandgap_semiconductors_factsheet.
pdf.
U.S. DOE. 2015. “Energy Department Awards $22 Million to Support Next Generation Electric
Machines for Manufacturing.” September 16. Accessed January 4, 2022.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-awards-22-million-support-next-generationelectric-machines-manufacturing.
U.S. DOE. 2018. “Carbon Conductors for Lightweight Motors and Generators.”
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2018/04/f50/Carbon Conductors for Lightweight
Motors and Generators_0.pdf.
U.S. DOS and EOP. 2021. The Long-Term Strategy of the United States, Pathways to Net-Zero
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050. Washington, D.C. Accessed January 4, 2022.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2012. Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey.
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2014/.
U.S. EIA. 2019. U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2018. Washington, D.C.
Available at www.eia.gov. Accessed January 4, 2022.
U.S. EIA. 2021. “In 2020, the United States produced the least CO2 emissions from energy innearly 40 years.” Today in Energy. Accessed January 4, 2022.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48856.
U.S. EPA. 2013. Water Audits and Water Loss Control for Public Water Systems, Washington,
D.C. Accessed January 6, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201504/documents/epa816f13002.pdf.
U.S. EPA. 2019. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator.
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-andreferences.
Vaillencourt, R. R. 2005. “The Correct Formula for Using the Affinity Laws When There Is a
Minimum Pressure Requirement.” Energy Engineering 102(4): 32–46.
DOI: 10.1080/01998590509509435.
95

Waide, P., C. U. Brunner, and IEA. 2011. Energy-Efficiency Policy Opportunities for Electric
Motor-Driven Systems. International Energy Agency. Energy Efficiency Series. Paris, France.
Accessed September 21, 2021. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/d69b2a76-feb9-4a74a921-2490a8fefcdf/EE_for_ElectricSystems.pdf.
Zahlan, J., and Cadmus Group Inc. 2017. “Simulating the Effects of Air Compressor Controls
and Sequencing Strategies in Variable Air Demand Environments.” ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Industry. Denver, CO. 202–214. Accessed January 6, 2022.
https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2017/data/polopoly_fs/1.3687870.1501159047!/fileserv
er/file/790261/filename/0036_0053_000049.pdf.

96Appendix A: Savings Estimates by Industrial Subsector
In this appendix, tables 52–57 show the electricity, cost, and CO2 emissions associated withmotor systems and the reduction potential associated with the measures evaluated in this reportfor industrial subsectors with a significant share of industrial sector motor system electricity
consumption. These subsectors include (% of industrial motor system electricity consumption inparentheses): Chemicals (19%), Primary Metals (12%), Food (9%), Paper (8%), Plastics andRubber (7%), and Petroleum Refining (7%). When examining the savings opportunities, caution
must be taken when summing the savings opportunities from multiple measures, as one may
influence the other. Also, note that due to data limitations, savings from advanced motor
technologies were not evaluated across all size ranges. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluatedfor advanced motor technologies.

97Chemicals
Table 52: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Chemicals subsector for the measures
evaluated
Electricity(GWh/yr)
105,699

Cost(million $/yr)
9,196

CO2
(MMT/yr)
74.9

Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD

2,780
1,576
151
10,459

234
132
13
879

2.0
1.1
0.1
7.4

Cogged V-belts
Reduce pressure set point
Install sequencer
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies
PM
SR
SynRM
PM SynRM

63
115
136
1,145

5
10
11
96

0.04
0.1
0.1
0.8

1,255

105

0.9

815

68

0.6

897

75

0.6

876

74

0.6

8,621
6,782
8,468
5,897

680
542
667
468

6.1
4.8
6.0
4.2

Baseline
Savings estimates

CR
306
26
0.2
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

98Primary Metals
Table 53: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Primary Metals subsector for the measures
evaluated
Electricity(GWh/yr)
63,917

Cost(million $/yr)
5,561

CO2
(MMT/yr)
45.3

Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts

2,701
939
63
4,006
42

227
79
5
337
4

1.9
0.7
0.0
2.8
0.0

Reduce pressure set point
Install sequencer
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies

29
145
582

2
12
49

0.0
0.1
0.4

1,397

117

1.0

308

26

0.2

385

32

0.3

1,528

128

1.1

-

-

-

4,897
4,582
4,793
4,011

405
380
396
333

3.5
3.2
3.4
2.8

Baseline
Savings estimates

PM
SR
SynRM
PM SynRM

CR
322
27
0.2
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

99

Food
Table 54: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Food subsector for the measures evaluatedElectricity(GWh/yr)
47,585

Cost(million $/yr)
4,140

CO2
(MMT/yr)
33.7

1,343

113

1.0

RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts

651
29
4,593
39

55
2
386
3

0.5
0.0
3.3
0.0

Reduce pressure set point
Install sequencer
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies

41
7
687

3
1
58

0.0
0.0
0.5

1,376

116

1.0

1,143

96

0.8

111

9

0.1

408

34

0.3

-

-

-

Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade

PM
4,688
389
3.3
SR
2,656
223
1.9
SynRM
4,608
382
3.3
PM SynRM
2,307
194
1.6
CR
158
14
0.1
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

100

PaperTable 55: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Paper subsector for the measures evaluatedElectricity(GWh/yr)
45,026

Cost(million $/yr)
3,917

CO2
(MMT/yr)
31.9

1,578

133

1.1

RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts

726
324
3,116
25

61
27
262
2

0.5
0.2
2.2
0.0

Reduce pressure set point
Install sequencer
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies

11
14
22

1
1
2

0.0
0.0
0.0

179

15

0.1

1,195

100

0.8

1,388

117

1.0

711

60

0.5

-

-

-

Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade

PM
2,161
180
1.5
SR
1,401
116
1.0
SynRM
2,114
176
1.5
PM SynRM
1,215
101
0.9
CR
76
6
0.1
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

101Plastics and Rubber
Table 56: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Plastics and Rubber subsector for themeasures evaluatedElectricity(GWh/yr)
39,898

Cost(million $/yr)
3,471

Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts

1,317
552
277
1,586
7

111
46
23
133
1

0.9
0.4
0.2
1.1
0.02

Reduce pressure set point
Install sequencer
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies

97
44
456

8
4
38

0.1
0.03
0.3

675

57

0.5

303

25

0.2

138

12

0.1

701

59

0.5

-

-

-

PM
SR
SynRM
PM SynRM

3,051
2,808
2,948
2,462

224
211
217
185

2.2
2.0
2.1
1.7

Baseline
Savings estimates

CO2 (MMT/yr)
28.3

CR
313
21
0.2
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

102

Petroleum Refining
Table 57: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Petroleum Refining subsector for themeasures evaluatedElectricity(GWh/yr)
39,269

Cost(million $/yr)
3,416

CO2
(MMT/yr)
27.8

Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts

797
520
47
6,626
19

67
44
4
557
2

0.6
0.4
0.03
4.7
0.01

Reduce pressure set point
Install sequencer
Eliminate inappropriate uses
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies

27
51
26

2
4
2

0.02
0.04
0.02

413

35

0.3

544

46

0.4

578

49

0.4

235

20

0.2

-

-

-

5,358
4,007
5,339
3,845

482
358
481
344

3.8
2.8
3.8
2.7

Baseline
Savings estimates

PM
SR
SynRM
PM SynRM

CR
27
2
0.02
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

103Appendix B: Savings Estimates by Commercial Subsector
In this appendix, tables 58–63 show the electricity, cost, and CO2 emissions associated withmotor systems—and the reduction potential associated with the measures evaluated in thisreport—for commercial subsectors with a significant share of commercial sector motor systemelectricity consumption. These subsectors include (% of commercial motor system electricity
consumption in parentheses): Office (18%), Education (14%), Lodging (11%), Warehouse andStorage (8%), Food Service (7%), and Healthcare Inpatient (7%). When examining the savings
opportunities, caution must be taken when summing the savings opportunities from multiple
measures, as one may influence the other. Also, note that due to data limitations, savings fromadvanced motor technologies were not evaluated across all size ranges. See Table 10 for the size
ranges evaluated for advanced motor technologies.

104Office
Table 58: Annual energy, cost, and CO2 cost savings in the Office subsector for the measures
evaluated
Electricity(GWh/yr)
93,335

Cost(million $/yr)
12,134

Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts

2,128
1,300
55
11,930
21

287
176
7
1,611
3

1.5
0.9
0.04
8.5
0.01

Reduce pressure set point
Install sequencer
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming

33
10

4
1

0.02
0.01

20

3

0.01

59

8

0.04

233

31

0.2

2,660

359

1.9

14,544

1,546

10.3

Baseline
Savings estimates

Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies
PM

CO2 (MMT/yr)
66.2

SR
15,232
1,632
10.8
SynRM
14,2581,511
10.1
PM SynRM
13,532
1,441
9.6
CR
588
80
0.4
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

105

Education
Table 59: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Education subsector for the measures
evaluated

Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies
PM
SR
SynRM

Electricity(GWh/yr)
76,339

Cost(million $/yr)
9,924

CO2 (MMT/yr)

2,597
1,062
313
11,546
703

351
143
42
1,559
95

1.8
0.8
0.2
8.2
0.5

19

3

0.01

172

23

0.1

276

37

0.2

1,417

191

1.0

14,266
15,91814,035

2,018
2,294
1,985

10.1
11.3
10.0

54.1

PM SynRM
13,973
1,984
9.9
CR
1,210
150
0.9
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

106

Lodging
Table 60: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Lodging subsector for the measures
evaluated

Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies
PM
SR
SynRM

Electricity(GWh/yr)
59,189

Cost(million $/yr)
7,695

CO2 (MMT/yr)

1,597
825
114
5,636
36

216
111
15
761
5

1.1
0.6
0.1
4.0
0.03

5

1

0.0

433

58

0.3

207

28

0.1

547

74

0.4

7,001
7,536
6,816

972
1,041
951

5.0
5.3
4.8

42.0

PM SynRM
6,894
961
4.9
CR
643
81
0.5
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

107

Warehouse and Storage
Table 61: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Warehouse and Storage subsector for themeasures evaluatedElectricity(GWh/yr)
40,054

Cost(million $/yr)
5,207

CO2 (MMT/yr)

Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts

1,773
545
274
2,801
40

239
74
37
378
5

1.3
0.4
0.2
2.0
0.03

Install sequencer
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies
PM
SR
SynRM

41

6

0.03

86

12

0.1

Baseline
Savings estimates

28

4

28.4

0.02

1,121

151

0.8

5,128
4,043
4,919

625
525
596

3.6
2.9
3.5

PM SynRM
3,596
469
2.5
CR
957
157
0.7
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

108

Food Service
Table 62: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Food Service subsector for the measures
evaluated

Baseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies

Electricity(GWh/yr)
34,776

Cost(million $/yr)
4,521

1,727
485
49
5,863
42

233
65
7
792
6

1.2
0.3
0.03
4.2
0.03

81

11

0.1

1,190

161

0.8

-

-

-

CO2 (MMT/yr)
24.7

PM
7,718
1,160
5.5
SR
7,975
1,198
5.7
SynRM
7,458
1,119
5.3
PM SynRM
7,505
1,127
5.3
CR
964
161
0.7
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

109

Healthcare Inpatient
Table 63: Annual energy, CO2, and cost savings in the Healthcare Inpatient subsector for themeasures evaluatedBaseline
Savings estimates
Premium Efficiency motor upgrade
RewindRight sizing
VFD
Cogged V-belts
Compressed air distribution system
improvements
Impeller trimming
Pump distribution system
improvements
Air duct distribution system
improvements
Advanced technologies
PM
SR
SynRM

Electricity(GWh/yr)
34,759

Cost(million $/yr)
4,519

934
439
21
4,796
40

126
59
3
647
5

0.7
0.3
0.01
3.4
0.03

187

25

0.1

256

35

0.2

142

19

0.1

702

95

0.5

3,481
3,549
3,422

401
408
394

2.5
2.5
2.4

CO2 (MMT/yr)
24.6

PM SynRM
3,065
349
2.2
CR
104
14
0.1
Note: The “baseline” annual energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and costs associated with motor
systems are also shown for context. Caution must be taken when summing savings across measures toaccount for the impact of one measure on another. See Table 10 for the size ranges evaluated foradvanced motor technologies.

110