[INSERTPICTURE(S)OFPRODUCT(S)]PRODUCT(S)][INSERTPICTURE(S)OFPRODUCT(S)]Energy Conservation StandardsNotice of Proposed Rulemaking forElectric MotorsJames RabaElectricMotorsDecember 11 2013Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies ProgramEERE-2010-BT-STD-0027El M t2010STD0027@ d1 |EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyeere.energy.govDecember11,2013ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.govWelcome• Introductions (around the room).• Role of the Facilitator.• Ground Rules.– Speak one at a time.– Say your name for the record – there will be a completetranscript of this meeting.– Be concise – share the ‘air-time’.– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebarticonversaons.– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand” to berecognized to speak.•HousekeepingItems.• Agenda Review.• Opening Remarks.2Agenda9:00 – 9:05 amWelcome, Introductions, Ground Rules.9:05 – 9:15 amOpening Remarks, Background, RegulatoryHistory.9:15 – 9:45 amOpening Comments from Participants.9:45 – 10:15 amMarket and Technology Assessment10:15 – 10:30 am Break.10:3011:30 amEngineering Analysis–11:30amEngineeringAnalysis.11:30 – 12:00 pmMarkups and Energy Use Analysis; and LifeCycle Cost AnalysisCycleCostAnalysis.12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch.3Agenda1:00 – 1:30 pmShipments, National Impact, and RegulatoryImpact Analysis.1:30 – 1:45 pmManufacturer Impact Analysis.1:45 – 2:00 pmEnvironmental Impact, Utility Impact, andEmployment Impact Analysis.2:00 – 2:15 pmSummary of Results and Proposed Standards.2:152:40 pmClosing Comments fromParticipants–2:40pmClosingCommentsfromParticipants.2:40 – 2:45 pm Closing Remarks.4Listening Via the Webcast• The Department is broadcasting this meeting live overthe Internet.• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodatestakeholders that are unable to attend the publicstakeholdersthatareunabletoattendthepublicmeeting in person.• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in andview the slides.• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit writtencomments after the public meeting5commentsafterthepublicmeeting.Purpose of the Public Meeting• Present the procedural and analytical approaches toevaluate energy conservation standards for electricmotors.Invitecomment ontheenergyconservation standards•commentonconservationstandardsnotice of proposed rulemaking document.• Discuss next steps in the rulemaking.• Invite participants to provide summary comments orstatements and raise additional issues for discussion.6Comments from Participants• Participants are invited to provide summary commentsor statements and raise additional issues fordiscussion.•NOPR comment periodclosesFebruary 4, 2014.NOPRcommentperiodFebruary4,20147Issues for Discussion• Issue “boxes” correspond to the list of issues for which theDepartment seeks comments.• The list of issues is in the NOPR document, available at:http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027Issue Box:DOE welcomes comments, data, and informationconcerning its proposed standards for Electric Motors. Issuesth t d t th i d i DOE’ bli h dt ilthatcorrespondtothose raisedinDOE’s publishedmaeralwill be numbered in accordance with that material. Whetherinvited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome on anypart of DOE’s analysis• The deadline for submitting comments isFebruary 4, 2014.partofDOE sanalysis.8How to Submit Written CommentsIn all correspondence, please refer to the electric motors rulemaking by:– Standards for Electric Motors;– Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027; and–Regulation IdentificationNumber (RIN)1904-AC28RegulationIdentificationNumber(RIN).Email:ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.govPostal:CourierMs. Brenda EdwardsMs. Brenda EdwardsMs.BrendaEdwards.BrendaEdwardsU.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Building Technologies Program, Suite 600Mailstop EE-5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW1000 I d d A SWW hi t DC 200241000IndependenceAvenue,SWWashington,DC20024Washington, DC 20585-0121 Tel: 202 586-2945Comment Period closes:February 4 2014 11:59PMET9CommentPeriodcloses:February4,2014,11:59PMETOpening RemarksMeeting participants are invited to provide openingremarks or statements at this time.10Public Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impactspy p8Results and Proposed Standards11Regulatory History•Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975(EPCA)Pub. L. 94-163A d dbthE P li A t f 1992 (EPACT) P b L–mendedbyeEnergyPolicyActof1992(EPACT),Pub.L.102-486 to add the “Energy Conservation Program forConsumer Products Other Than Automobiles” and includeelectric motorselectricmotors.•EnerPolicyActof 1992(EPATPub. L. 102-486gycy ctC)0– Amended EPCA to provide definitions, test procedures, labelingprovisions, energy efficiency standards, and compliancecertification requirements for certain commercial and industrialcertificationrequirementsforcertaincommercialandindustrialelectric motors.12Regulatory History•Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007(EISA) Pub. L. 110-140–Amended theenergyconservationstandards for electric motorsAmendedtheconservationstandardsforelectricmotorsprovided under EPACT 1992.– Established energy efficiency standards for a broader scope ofelectric motors not previouslycoveredelectricmotors,notpreviouslycovered.– Compliance date for new standards wasDecember 19, 2010.CR l ki•urrentuemaking– EPCA requires DOE to periodically determine by rule whetherto amend energy conservation standards for electric motors.– Any standards that DOE prescribes would require a compliancedate not earlier thanDecember 19, 2015.13Issue 13:DOE seeks comment on itsproposed complianceIssue13:DOEseekscommentonitsproposedcompliancedate of December 19, 2015.14Background and Overview• EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) directs DOE to consider sevenfactors when setting energy conservation standardsEPCA F tDOE A l iEPCAFactorDOEAnalysis1. Economic impact on consumersand manufacturersLife-cycle cost analysisManufacturer impact analysis2Lifetime operating cost savingsLife-cycle cost analysis.Lifetimeoperatingcostsavingscyclecostanalysis3. Total projected energy savings National impact analysis4. Impact on utility or performanceEngineering analysisScreeninganalysisy5. Impact of any lessening ofcompetitionManufacturer impact analysis6. Need for national energyNational impact analysisconservationNationalimpactanalysis7. Other factors the Secretaryconsiders relevantEnvironmental assessmentUtility impact analysisEmployment impact analysis15EmploymentimpactanalysisBackground and Overview20122015201320142016Milestone DateNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) PublicationDecember 6, 2013NOPR Public MeetingD b 11 2013NOPRPublicMeetingDecember11,2013Comment Period EndsFebruary 4, 2014Final Rule Publication (projected)May 201416Consensus Agreement• DOE’s proposed rule closely mirrors a consensus agreement betweena coalition of motor manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates.•NationalElectricalManufacturersAssociation•AlliancetoSaveEnergy•NorthwestPowerandConservationCouncilgy•AmericanCouncilforanEnergy‐EfficientEconomy•EarthJustice•NortheastEnergyEfficiencyPartnerships•NorthwestEnergyEfficiencyAlliance•NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil•ApplianceStandardsAwarenessProject• The proposal, as recommended by thecoalition, would bring manycurrently-uncovered motors to NEMA’s “Premium” levels while retainingthe current levels for othersthecurrentlevelsforothers.– Highest net present value (NPV) of all analyzed levels.– Proposes levels manufacturers can implement that are familiar andunderstandable to them and that efficiency advocatessupportunderstandabletothemandthatefficiencyadvocatessupport.• DOE’s proposal sets higher standards than the coalitionrecommendationfor“Uframe”motors and expands coverage to17recommendationforU-framemotorsandexpandscoverageto“integral brake motors.”Test Procedure Modifications• DOE has recently issued a test procedure final rule on December6, 2013.• The new test procedure final rule:– adopts definitions, which will determine the applicability of DOE’sregulations to various types of electric motors.– amends the energy efficiency test procedures for electric motors toallow currently unregulated motors to be tested by clarifying the testsetupneeded to facilitate testingof these types of electric motorsyp18Public Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impactspy p8Results and Proposed Standards19NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact20AnalysisMarket and Technology AssessmentPurpose• Characterize the electric motor market and industry.• Define the scope of coverage for energy conservationstandards.• Identify the technology options to improve electric motorefficiency.• Establish equipment classes.21Relationship of MTA to Other AnalysesMarket andTechnologyAssessmentEquipment ClassesTechnologyoptionsto improve efficiencytoimproveefficiencyScreening AnalysisDesign options to improve efficiencyEi ingneeringAnalysis22Current Electric Motor Standards• Current energy conservation standards exist for the followinggroups of electric motors:groupsofelectricmotors:Electric Motor CategoryHorsepower RangeEnergy ConservationElectricMotorCategoryHorsepowerRangeStandard LevelGeneral Purpose ElectricMotors (Subtype I)1 to 200 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 Table 12-12General Purpose ElectricMotors (Subtype II)1 to 200 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 Table 12-11NEMA Design B andIEC Design N Motors201 to 500 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 Table 12-11IECDesignNMotorsFire Pump Electric Motors1 to 500 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 Table 12-1123Expanded Electric Motor Standards•DOE is proposing amendingthe energy conservation standards for electric motorsDOEisproposingamendingtheenergyconservationstandardsforelectricmotorsby applying the standards currently in placeto a wider scope of electric motors forwhich DOE does not currently regulate.• The motorsregulated under expanded scope of the proposed standards meet thefollowing nine characteristics :Is a single-speed, induction motor,Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1)operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor,Operates on polyphase alternating current (AC) 60hertz sinusoidal line powerOperatesonpolyphasealternatingcurrent(AC)60-hertzsinusoidallinepower,Has 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,Is rated 600 volts or less,Has a three-digit NEMA frame size (orIEC metric equivalent) or an enclosed 56NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),Has no more than 500 horsepower, but greater than or equal to 1 horsepower (orkilowatt equivalent) and24kilowattequivalent),andMeets all of the performance requirements ofa NEMA Design A, B, or C electricmotor or an IEC design N or H electric motorExpanded Electric Motor Standards• DOE is proposing to set standards for the following electricmotor types:Electric Motor TypesNEMA Design A motors from 201 to 500horsepowerElectric motors with non-standard endshieldsor flangesElectric motors with moisture-resistantwindings, sealed or encapsulated windingsElectric motors with non-standard base ormounting feetPartial electric motorsElectric motors with special shaftsPartialelectricmotorsElectricmotorswithspecialshaftsTotally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV)electric motorsVertical hollow-shaft electric motorsImmersible electric motorsElectric motors with sleeve bearingsImmersibleelectricmotorsElectricmotorswithsleevebearingsIntegral brake electric motors Electric motors with thrust bearingsNon-integral brake electric motors25Expanded Electric Motor Standards• DOE is proposing not to require the following types ofmotors to meet standards:• Air-over Electric MotorsC t S t f El t i M t•ComponentSets ofElectricMotors• Liquid-cooled Electric Motors• Submersible Electric Motors• Definite-purpose, Inverter-fed Electric Motors26Request for CommentIssue 24:DOE seeks data on any other subsets of 56-frame motors, particularly those motors that are:(1) enclosed general purpose electric motors that have arating of under 1 horsepower and (2) open, special ordefinite purpose (inclusive) electric motors. The types ofdata that DOE seeks include, but are not limited to, thef ll i t iffi i di t ib tihi tfollowing categories: efficiencydistribution; spmentbreakdown between horsepower ratings, open andenclosed motors, and between general and special anddefinitepurpose electricmotors; and typical applicationspurposeelectricmotors;andtypicalapplicationsthat use these motors.Issue 30:DOE requests comment on the ninecharacteristics of electric motors and theirappropriateness for outlining scope of standards.27Electric Motors Equipment Classes and Groups• DOE divides covered equipment into classes by:– The type of energy used– The capacity of the equipment, or– Other performance-related feature that justifies different standardlevels,suchasfeaturesaffectingconsumerutility(42U.S.C.6295(q))e s, suc as ea u es a ec g co su e u y ( U S C 6 95(q• The equipment classes are divided based on the combination of:NEMA D i T B k d Fi P R ti–NEMADesignType,Brakes, andFirePumpRating,– Horsepower rating,– Pole configuration, and– Enclosure type28Electric Motors Equipment Classes and Groups• Equipment class group is a collection of a large number ofequipment classes with the same design type.•DOEcreated four equipment class groups by dividing thecreatedfourequipmentclassgroupsbydividingthepopulation of electric motors based on the following motordesigns:–NEMA Design A or B (ECG 1)– NEMA Design C (ECG 2)–Fire pump electric motors(ECG 3))– Electric motors with brakes (ECG 4)29Th 580 t ti l i t l hi h i tElectric Motors Equipment Classes and Groups•There are580potentialequipmentclasses whichconsistof all permutations of electric motor design types.EquipmentClass GroupElectric Motor DesignHorsepower Poles Enclosure1NEMA Design A & B*15002468OpenEquipmentClassGroup ElectricMotorDesignHorsepower Poles Enclosure1NEMADesignA&B*1‐500 2,4,6,8OpenEnclosed2NEMADesignC*1‐200 4,6,8OpenEl d1NEMADesignA&B1-5002,4,6,8Enclosed2NEMA Design C*1-200 4, 6, 8OpenEnclosedg,,Enclosed3FirePump*1‐500 2,4,6,8OpenEnclosed4BrakeMotors* 1‐30 4,6,8OpenEnclosed3Fire Pump*1-500 2, 4, 6, 8OpenEnclosed4OpenBrake Motors* 1-30 4, 6, 8Enclosed*Including IEC equivalents.30Request for CommentI 14DOE k t it d i i t lssue14:DOEseeks commentonitsdecisionto analyzebrake motors in a separate equipment class group.Issue 15:DOE seeks comment on its decision to limitstandards for brake motors to 1-30 HP, and 4, 6, and 8pole configurations. DOE selected these ratings aftergreviewing manufacturer catalogs and only finding brakemotors in these configurations.31Technology AssessmentDOE id tifi df ll it h l ti th t ld b d tType of Motor Losses TechnologyOption•DOEidentifiedfollowingtechnology optionsthatcouldbe usedtoreduce motor losses and improve motor efficiency :ypgy pStator I2R LossesIncrease cross-sectional area of copper in stator slotsDecrease the length of coil extensionsU dit tRotor I2R LossesUse adie-castcopper rotor cageIncrease cross-sectional area of rotor conductor barsIncrease cross-sectional area of end ringsCore LossesUse electrical steel laminations with lower losses (watts/lb)Use thinner steel laminationsIncrease stack length (i e add electrical steel laminations)Increasestacklength(i.e.,addelectricalsteellaminations)Friction and Windage LossesOptimize bearing and lubrication selectionImprove cooling system design32Stray Load LossesReduce skew on rotor cageImprove rotor bar insulationPublic Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impactspy p8Results and Proposed Standards33NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact34AnalysisEngineering AnalysisPurpose• To evaluate design options that improve efficiency.• To characterize manufacturer selling price (MSP) versusefficiency for higher-efficiency electric motors.Downstream AnalysisManufacturer Selling Price –Efficiency Relationship•Life-Cycle Cost and PaybackPeriod Analysis

f acturer g Price•National Impact Analysis•Manufacturer ImpactAnalysis

Manu f SellinEfficiency Level35AnalysisEfficiencyLevelEngineering Analysis: Choose RepresentativeUnitsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE selected five representative units.• Analysis for all covered motors was based on these selectedrepresentative units.Develop ELsRep.UnitConduct Testand TeardownAnalysisECGECGrepresentedRep.UnitMotorDesignRep.UnitFrameEnclosureRep.UnitHorsepowerRep.UnitPoleConfigurationNEMAD iTotally5Model HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop1 1,3,and4NEMADesignByEnclosed,FanCooled43075NEMADesignTotally5DevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment22NEMADesignCEnclosed,FanCooled45036EquipmentClasses NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis: Choose RepresentativeUnitsChooseRepresentativeUnits98.0100.0Develop ELs30HP75HP94.096.0

a ilable (%)Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysis5HP90.092.0

c iency Av aModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop84 086.088.0

e rage Effi cDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment80.082.084.0

AV e37EquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed1to10HP15to50HP60to500HPEngineering Analysis:Develop ELsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE identified efficiency levels (ELs) that span the range ofelectric motor efficiencies from the baseline to the maximumtechnologically feasible efficiency.• Factors DOE considered in settingELs:Develop ELsCommercially available and software modeledConduct Testand TeardownAnalysisNEMA standard nominal efficiencies (e.g. Table 12-10)efficienciesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelopBenchmark efficiency levels (e.g. NEMA Premium)ManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment38Classes NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis:Develop ELsChooseRepresentativeUnitsRepresentativeUnitEL0(Baseline)EL1(EPACT1992)EL2(NEMAPremium)EL3(Best‐in‐Market*)EL4(Max‐Tech)EfficiencyLevelsforEquipmentClassGroups1and4Develop ELs( )1992)Premium)Market*)()5hp(ECG1and4)82.5% 87.5% 89.5% 90.2% 91.0%30hp(ECG1and4)89.5% 92.4% 93.6% 94.1% 94.5%Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysis(ECG1and4)75hp(ECG1only**)93.0% 94.1% 95.4% 95.8% 96.2%*Best‐in‐marketrepresentsthebestornearbestefficiencylevelatwhichcurrentmanufacturersareproducingelectricmotors.**ECG4doesnothavea75horsepowerrepresentativeunitbecauseDOEwasunabletofindbrakemotorsbuiltModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop**ECG4doesnothavea75‐horsepowerrepresentativeunitbecauseDOEwasunabletofindbrakemotorsbuiltwithsuchahighhorsepowerratingEfficiencyLevelsforEquipmentClassGroup3RepresentativeEL0EL1EL2EL3DevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentRepresentativeUnitEL0(EPACT1992)(NEMAPremium)(Best‐in‐Market*)EL3(Max‐Tech)5hp87.5% 89.5% 90.2% 91.0%30hp92.4% 93.6% 94.1% 94.5%39EquipmentClasses NotAnalyzedp75hp94.1% 95.4% 95.8% 96.2%Engineering Analysis:Develop ELsChooseRepresentativeUnitsEfficiencyLevelsforEquipmentClassGroup2Develop ELsRepresentativeUnitEL1(EPACT1992)EL2(NEMAPremium)EL3(Max‐Tech)5hp87.5% 89.5% 91.0%Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysisp50hp92.4% 93.6% 94.5%Model HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment40Classes NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis:Test and Teardown AnalysisChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE purchased and tested five electric motors representingEL 0 through 3 for equipment class group 1 as well as electricmotors representingEL 0 for equipment classgroup2.g qp g p• DOE conducted teardowns on the tested motors to develop abill of materials, including components and weights.Develop ELsbillofmaterials,includingcomponentsandweights.• DOE supplemented the findings from its tests and tear-downsthrough:Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysis– a review of data collected from manufacturers aboutprices, efficiencies, and other features of various models ofelectric motors andModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelopelectricmotors,and– interviews with manufacturers about the techniques andassociated costs used to improve efficiencyDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment41Classes NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis:Modeling High Efficiency DesignsChooseRepresentativeUnits• The software modeling was used to develop the highestefficiency levels (i.e., the max-tech levels) technologicallyfeasible for each representative unit analyzedfeasibleforeachrepresentativeunitanalyzed.• DOE used proprietary software program called VICA toconduct software modeling.• The estimated maximum stack length,the maximum stackDevelop ELsg ,length found during tear-downs, and the maximum stacklength modeled for a given representative unit is as follows:Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysisEstimatedMaximumStackModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelopRepresentativeUnitEstimatedMaximumStackLengthMaximumStackLengthofaTornDownMotorMaximumStackLengthModeled30HorsepowerDesignB8.87in. 8.02in.(EL2)7.00in.DevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentDesignB()75HorsepowerDesignB13.06in. 11.33in.(EL3) 12.00in.5Horsepower5 80in4 75in(EL0)5 32in42EquipmentClasses NotAnalyzedDesignC5.80in.4.75in.(EL0)5.32in.50HorsepowerDesignC9.55in. 8.67in.(EL0) 9.55in.Engineering Analysis:Develop Material Cost InputsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE calculated manufacturer production costs (MPCs) bydisassemblingelectric motors from multiple manufacturerspand creating bills of materials (BOMs).•BOMs describe the product components in detail,Develop ELsBOMsdescribetheproductcomponentsindetail,including labor hour estimates based on subject matterexpert feedback and a stator winding analysis todetermine whether it was hand or machine wound.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysis• DOE determined materials prices and labor requirementsthrough conversations with manufacturers and industryModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelopg yexperts.• DOE determined markups and labor rates from censusDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment43pdata, SEC filings, and manufacturer interviews.Classes NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis:Develop Material Cost InputsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE then applied manufacturer markups to the MPCs toobtain MSPs.Markup / CostInputMarkupPercentNotesHandling and scrap25%Standard handling of material and the scrapDevelop ELsHandlingandscrap2.5%materialFactory overhead17.5 %Aluminum die-cast rotors; applied to materialsonlyConduct Testand TeardownAnalysis18.0 % Copper die-cast rotors ; applied to materials onlyFully-burdened hourlylabor rate$33.46Aggregate cost of domestic and offshore rates;applied to total labor hoursA fSG&A R&D / i kModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelopNon-production37.0 %AccountsforSG&A,R&D, warranty/riskprovisions, and profit factor; applied to labor costand materials (5 and 30 horsepower rep. unit)45 0%Accounts for SG&A, R&D, warranty/riski i d fit f t li d t l b tDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment4445.0%provisions, andprofitfactor; appliedtolabor costand materials (75 horsepower rep units)EquipmentClasses NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis: ResultsNEMA Design B, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, EnclosedElectric Motor Engineering Analysis CurveNEMA Design B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, EnclosedElectric Motor Engineering Analysis Curve45NEMA Design B, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole,Enclosed Motor Engineering Analysis CurveEngineering Analysis: ResultsNEMA Design C, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, EnclosedMotor Engineering Analysis Curve46NEMA Design C, 50-Horsepower, 4-Pole, EnclosedMotor Engineering Analysis CurveRequests for CommentIssue 19:DOE seeks comment on its estimation for laborIssue19:DOEseekscommentonitsestimationforlaborhours for each representative unit.Issue 20:DOE seeks comments on the cost tomanufacturers to change their product lines to meet EL3.Issue 21:DOE seeks comments on the cost tomanufacturers to change theirproduct linesto meet EL4manufacturerstochangetheirproductlinestomeetEL4.47Engineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnitsEquipment Class Group I• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of the NEMAD i B4l 5 30 d 75 h l d fesgnB,4-pole,5,30, and75horsepower, enclosedframemotors.E i t Cl G IIDevelop ELsEquipmentClassGroupII• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of the NEMADesign C, 4-pole, 5, and 50 horsepower, enclosed frame motors.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysisEquipment Class Group III• Fire pump electric motors have low shipments and low run time.Model HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop• Efficiency levels for these motors are derived from the analysis ofthe NEMA Design B, 4-pole, 5, 30, and 75 horsepower, enclosedframe motors (equipment class group I).ManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment48Classes NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE considered two scaling methods:– Regression equations based on relationships found in theEPACT 1992 and NEMA premium efficiency tablesDevelop ELsEPACT1992andNEMApremiumefficiencytables.– Incremental Improvements of motor losses.I h i ffi i l l b d NEMAConduct Testand TeardownAnalysis•In eachscenario, efficiencylevels werebasedonNEMAnominal efficiency values taken from NEMA MG 1-2011 Table12-10.Model HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop• Ultimately, DOE decided to use the second scaling method ofincremental improvements of motor losses.Based on NEMA“Energy Efficient” (NEMA MG 12011DevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment–BasedonNEMAEnergyEfficient”(NEMAMG1-2011Tables 12-11 & 20-A) and “Premium Efficient” (NEMA MG1-2011 Tables 12-12 & 20-B) values.–Incremental improvements of one NEMA band at higher49EquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed–IncrementalimprovementsofoneNEMAbandathigherELs.Engineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnits• For ECG I, III*, IV (NEMA Design A & B):– EL 0: Lowest-in-scope efficiencies for all equipment classesEL 1 NEMAMG 12011T bl 1211 d 20A f llDevelop ELs–EL1:NEMAMG1-2011Tables12-11and20-Afor allequipment classes– EL 2: NEMA MG 1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B for allequipment classesConduct Testand TeardownAnalysisequipmentclasses– EL 3: One NEMA band above EL 1 for all equipment classes– EL 4: One NEMA band above EL 2 for all equipment classes*For ECG III,the efficiencylevels are offset byone,i.e.,Table 12-11 is the baseline.Model HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop, y y ,,• For ECG II (NEMA Design C):–EL0: NEMAMG 1-2011Table 12-11 for all equipment classesDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentEL0:NEMAMG12011Table1211forallequipmentclasses– EL 1: NEMA MG 1-2011 Table 12-12 for all equipment classes– EL 2: One NEMA band above EL 1 for all equipment classes50EquipmentClasses NotAnalyzedEngineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnitsDevelop ELsConduct Testand TeardownAnalysisModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipment51Classes NotAnalyzedPublic Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impactspy p8Results and Proposed Standards52NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact53AnalysisMarkups AnalysisPurpose• Characterize motor distribution channels.• Determine consumer motor prices based on manufacturer costs,both for baseline and higher efficiency equipment.Method• Identify distribution channels.•Estimateconsumerprices by applying markups to manufacturerpricesbyapplyingmarkupstomanufacturerselling price.54Markups Analysis• Six primary distribution channels:Channel: From Manufacturer Share of ShipmentsTo OEM to End-user 50%To Distributor to End-user 24%To Distributor to OEM to End-user23%ToDistributortoOEMtoEndTo Contractor to End-user 0.75%To Distributor to Contractor to End-user 0.75%T Ed1 5%• Other distribution channels may exist (e.g. from manufacturer toOEMs, to end-users through distributors) but are estimated to accountToEnd-user1.5%OEMs,toendusersthroughdistributors)butareestimatedtoaccountfor a minor share of the motor sales (less than one percent).55Markups AnalysisM k ltit t f d ld (CGS)•arups relate prceto costofgoods sold(CGS).• Baseline markups relate price to cost for baseline products.ԟBaseline markups indicate a consumer price that covers all of aretailer’s or distributor’s expenses plus profit.• Incremental markups relate the incremental change in consumerprice to the incremental change in CGS for higher-efficiencyproducts.ԟSome costs remain constant as CGS increases.ԟIncremental markups cover only expenses that vary with CGS –expensesthat increase due to an increase in product efficiency.thatincreaseduetoanincreaseinproductefficiency.• Weighting the markup values for each actor by the respectiveshares of each channel yields an average overall baseline markup56sharesofeachchannelyieldsanaverageoverallbaselinemarkupof 1.63and an overall incremental markup of 1.50.NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact57AnalysisEnergy Use AnalysisPurpose• Develop annual energy use data for electric motors based on fieldoperatingconditions.Method• DOE developed average energy use values by using typical motoroperating profiles associated with different applications (e.g.compressors, fans, and pumps).• Developed distributions of electric motor operating hours andmotor loading to account for variability in the field.• Focused on representative units.58Energy Use Analysis• For electric motors, the energy usedby the motor refers to the “energylosses”, the remaining energy is converted to useful mechanical shaftpower.A l ( l d h i l ) i kWh•Annualenergy use(motorslosses andmechanicalpower),inkWh:opHLLHPE 

# 746.0Where:– E: Annual energy use (kWh/yr);–HP: Motor capacity (hp);



# HP:Motorcapacity(hp);– L: Motor load (%);– Hop: Annual operating hours (hr/yr); andη(L): efficiency at load L (%)–(L):efficiencyatloadL(%).• Motor annual losses, in kWh:))((591LEElosses 

# Energy Use AnalysisInput Preliminary Analysis NOPR ChangesNOPR Changes to Energy Use InputsDistribution acrosssectors• Based on share of installed base •Adjusted to include 56 frame enclosedmotors.• Used the same distribution acrosssectors123 i d t i l t• Used sector specific distributions• Used additional data from The NorthwestI d t i l M t D t b idDistribution acrossapplication bysector•123industrialmotor surveys orassessments data compiled byWashington State University,Applied Proactive Technologies(includes 112 assessments fundedIndustrialMotorDatabase providesinformation on motors collected by theIndustrial Assessment Center (IAC) atOregon State University (OSU). Thedatabase includes more than 22,000(by NYSERDA) [WSU/NYSERDAdatabase]records, each with detailed motorapplication and field usage data. [NorthwestIndustrial Motor Database]Operating load• Based on results data from theWSU/NYSERDA database• Used additional data from The NorthwestIndustrial Motor DatabaseIndustry -Operating hours• Based on results data from theWSU/NYSERDA database• Used additional data from The NorthwestIndustrial Motor Database60Agriculture -Operating hours• Multiple sources as listed in thepreliminary analysis• For Pumps: used data from the U.S.Department of Agriculture (February 2010),2007 Census of Agriculture Farm andRanch Irrigation SurveyEnergy Use Analysis• Distribution of shipments across sectors (commercial,industrial, agricultural).HorsepowerrangeIndustry%Agriculture%Commercial%1-50 26.1 0.1 73.851-100 63.3 7.0 29.710120076 03 420 6-...201-500 69.1 3.0 27.9Source: EastonConsultants I (2000)Variable Frequency DriveRetrieved February 92011Source:EastonConsultants,I.(2000),VariableFrequencyDrive.RetrievedFebruary9,61Energy Use Analysis• Distribution across applications:ԟFor each sector and equipment class, established distributionof shipments across application(e.g. fan,pump,andpp ( g , p p,compressor).ԟExample for electric motors used in the industrial sector:AirMaterial(%)CompressorFan PumpMaterialHandlingOtherTotalIndustry1-5hp 5.1 14 10.6 41.7 28.61006-20hp 6.3 23.4 17.1 23.2 3010021-50hp 12.1 20.2 17.5 19.5 30.710051-100hp 17.1 20.9 16.1 14.3 31.6100101-200hp 19 21.4 14.8 6.6 38.2100201500hp23 513 615 67 240 162201-500hp23.513.615.67.240.1100Energy Use AnalysisDOEd t i d l f l ti•determinedaverage valuesfor annualoperatinghours by application, sector, and horsepower range.Horsepower rangehp1-56-2021-5051-100101-200201-500IndustryAir Compressors 5,729 5,568 5,986 6,440 6,398 6,023Fans 5,932 6,332 6,469 6,538 6,590 6,817Pumps 5,936 6,347 6,883 6,848 7,076 7,518Material Handling490245774681548864315990MaterialHandling,,,,,,Other5,289 5,416 5,544 5,377 5,442 5,456Fire Pump3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25CommercialAir Compressors 1,000 1,2001,500 1,5001,500 1,500Fans3 0003 3003 6003 9004 2004 500,,,,,,Pumps 1,500 1,650 1,800 1,9502,100 2,250Material Handling 1,959 2,1652,380 2,5672,753 2,939Other1,959 2,1652,380 2,5672,753 2,939Fire Pump3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25A i ltgrcuureAir Compressors 1,500 1,5001,500 1,5001,500 1,500Fans 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,5001,500 1,500Pumps 1,009 1, 009 1, 009 1, 065 1, 121 1, 121Material Handling 1,500 1,5001,500 1,5001,500 1,500O h1 5001 5001 5001 5001 5001 50063Other1,5001,5001,5001,5001,5001,500Fire Pump3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25Energy Use AnalysisDOE d t i d l f l d b•DOEdeterminedaverage valuesforloadbyapplication.ApplicationAverage Load%Air compressors72.1Fans69.6Pumps67.0Material Handling58.9Other62.0Fire Pumps67.0• Based on the test data from the engineering analysis,DOE modeled the motor losses as a function of loadingusing a third degree polynomial equation.64Energy Use AnalysisAl ti b ffi i l l•verage annualenergy consumptionby efficiencylevel:Rep.UnitDescriptionkilowatt-hours per yearEL 0EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 41D i BTf 5h * 4 l l d8 9778 2878 1388 0627 969esgnB,T-frame,5hp*,4poles, enclosed,,,,,2 Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 61,611 60,164 58,778 58,698 58,5113 Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 195,566 194,167 190,458 190,392 188,9974 Design C, T-frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 8,376 8,206 8,078 - -5 Design C, T-frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 79,551 78,276 77,653 - -Fi l t i t 5 h 4 l6Fire pump electric motor ,5hp,4poles,enclosed9.24 9.08 9.00 8.89 -7Fire pump electric motor, 30 hp, 4 poles,enclosed53.47 52.22 52.17 52.01 -Fire pump electric motor 75 hp 4 poles8Firepumpelectricmotor,75hp,4poles,enclosed130.24 127.77 127.75 126.81 -9 Brake motor, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 8,079 7,430 7,290 7,219 7,13210 Brake motor, 30 hp, 4poles, enclosed 48,394 47,178 45,999 45,934 45,77765p pPublic Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impacts8Results and Proposed Standards66NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact67AnalysisLife Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisPurpose• Assess the LCC impacts and PBP for the consumers of electrict d th id d ffi il lmotors underthe consideredefficiencyeves.Method• LCC equals total installed costs plus the sum of annual operatingcosts discounted to a particular base year.• Analysis models the uncertaintyand variabilityof inputs usingayp gMonte Carlo approach and probability distributions.• Analysis is implemented in MS Excel® spreadsheet combined withCrystal Ball®.68Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisBaselineManufacturerCostEngineeringAnalysisStd‐LevelManufacturerCostManufacturerMarkupM kDistributor&ConsumerPriceTotalInstalledCostMarkupsAnalysisDistributor&ContractorMarkupsSalesTaxInstallationCostPaybackPeriodLife‐CycleCostEnergyUseAnalysisEnergyConsumptionEnergyPricesAnnualEnergyCostRepairCostAnnualOperatingExpenseLifetimeLifetimeOperatingExpenseMaintenanceCostDiscountRateEnergyPriceTrend69TrendLife Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisElectric motor mechanical lifetimes (hours) by horsepower rangeand sectorHorsepowerRangeIndustrialSectorAgriculturalSectorCommercialSector1 – 5 43,800 28,578 37,0606 – 20 43,800 27,966 44,248215087 60026 55563 596–,,,51 – 100 87,600 25,870 88,675101 – 200 131,400 24,659 85,548• DOE considered a negative correlation between motor lifetime (in201 – 500 131,400 27,597 73,01870years) and operating hours.Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisElectric motor weighted average lifetime across application(example)HorsepowerRangeEquipmentClass GroupWeighted Average Lifetime AcrossApplicationsYrgIndustrial Commercial Agricultural1-5Group 1NEMA8 17 206-208 19 202150NEMADesign Aand BMotors21-5015 22 2051-10014 29 20101-20021 28 19201500212920-71Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisAverage Repair Frequency: Industrial and commercial sector• Motors 1 – 20 horsepower: not repaired;• Motors 21–100 horsepower: half lifetime;• Motors 101 – 500 horsepower: third lifetime; and• For firepumpelectric motors, assumed there is no repair due top pthe low operating hours.Average Repair Frequency:AgricultureAverageRepairFrequency:Agriculture• On average: half lifetime.72Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisExample of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA Design B, T frame, 5 HP,Four Poles, Enclosed MotorEnergyEffi iEfficiencyLife-Cycle CostLife-Cycle Cost SavingsPaybackPeriodyearsAverageEfficiencyLevely%yearsAverageInstalledPrice$AverageEnergyUsekWh/yrAverageAnnualOperatingCost$AverageLife-CycleCost$AverageSavings$Customers withNet Cost%Net Benefit%Median0 82.5 603 8,977 772 6,127N/A0.0 0.0 N/A1 87.5 623 8,287 714 5,731440.0 11.2 0.42 89.5 674 8,138 701 5,6916110.2 30.8 3.83 90.2 729 8,062 694 5,6925635.5 42.0 7.14 91.0 1,152 7,969 687 6,065-28385.4 6.8 31.473Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisExample of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA Design B, T frame, 75 HP,Four Poles, Enclosed MotorEnergyEfficiencLife-Cycle CostLife-Cycle Cost SavingsPaybackPeriodyearsAverageEnergyEfficiencyLevelEfficiency%yAverageInstalledPrice$AverageEnergyUsekWh/yrAverageAnnualOperatingCost$AverageLife-CycleCost$AverageSavings$Customers withNet Cost%NetBenefit%Median0 93.0 3,576 195,566 15,283 131,207N/A0.0 0.0 N/A1 94.1 3,860 194,167 15,194 130,778482.9 5.2 3.5295 44 344190 45814 929129 0346262 730 11 9.,190,458,129,034...3 95.8 5,082 190,392 14,944 129,898-2149.2 25.9 6.64 96.2 6,461 188,997 14,855 130,524-59470.3 21.2 16.174Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisIssue 5:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources fordeterminingthe frequencyof motor repair dependingonqy p p gequipment class group and sector.Issue 6:DOE seeks comment on anyadditional sources ofdata on motor lifetime that could be used to validate DOE’sestimates of motor mechanical lifetime and its method ofestimating lifetimes.Issue 7:DOE seeks comment on the estimated base casedistribution of product efficiencies and on any additionalsources of data.75Public Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impacts8Results and Proposed Standards76NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact77AnalysisShipments AnalysisPurpose• To estimate electric motor shipments in the base case andstandards cases.Method•The shipments model relies on two main sources:Theshipmentsmodelreliesontwomainsources:ԟCurrent and historical shipments data (Market research report,inputs from interested parties, U.S. Census, NEMA);ԟFixed investment data (Bureau of Economic Analysis); andԟGross Domestic Product projections (AEO 2013).•Shipment projections driven by economicgrowth and fixedShipmentprojectionsdrivenbyeconomicgrowthandfixedinvestments in equipment including motors.78Shipments AnalysisAnnual ShipmentsHorsepowerRange2011 Shipmentsthousand units1 – 5 3,4916 – 20 1,40821 – 50 35651–100117101 – 200 39201 – 500 20Ttloa5,43179Shipments AnalysisShipments ProjectionEquipment ClassGroupingAnnual Shipmentsthousand unitsC l ti2016** 2025 2035 2045**Cumulativeover 30-yearsNEMA Designs A & B 5,8978,197 11,20615,473 302,880NEMA Design C1116 2129575NEMADesignC11Fire Pump 22 34 77Brake 344478 654902 17,6666 2548 69311 88316 409*Total may not sum up because of rounding.Total*6,2548,69311,88316,409321,19880** The shipments analysis uses January 1st, 2016 to represent the compliance date of December 19,2015.Shipments AnalysisIssue 3:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources ofdata that could be used to establish the distribution of electricmotors across equipment class groups.Issue 4:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources ofdata that could be used to establish the distribution of electricmotors across sectors by horsepower range and within eachequipment class group.81NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact82AnalysisNational Impact AnalysisPurpose• For equipment shipped from 2015 to 2044:– To estimate the National Energy Savings (NES) from new andamended energy conservation standards at different efficiencylevels.–To estimate the national economic impactfor electricmotor usersToestimatethenationaleconomicimpactforelectricmotorusers(or the Net Present Value (NPV)) from energy conservationstandards at different efficiency levels.M th deod• DOE calculates national energy savings by multiplying unit lifetimeenergy savings by projected shipments and accumulating thisj t d l th 30projectedvalue overthe30years.• DOE calculates the NPV by accumulating the difference each yearbetween energy bill savings and increased equipment expendituresfor all motors shipped o er the 30 earperiod83forallmotorsshippedoverthe30yearperiod.National Impact AnalysisBase-Case Efficiency Projection• Depicts the current and projected mix of electric motor efficiencies sold inthe absence of new regulation.– DOE used the number of models meeting the requirements of eachefficiency level from six major manufacturers and one distributor’scatalog data to develop the base-case efficiency distribution in 2012for each equipment class group and horsepower rangeforeachequipmentclassgroupandhorsepowerrange.– Beyond 2012, DOE assumed the efficiency distributions for equipmentclass groups 1 and 4 vary over time based on historical data for themarketpenetration of NEMA Premium motors within the market forintegral alternating current induction motors*.– For equipment class groups 2 and 3, DOE kept the base caseefficiency distributions in the compliance year equal to 2012 levels anddid not assume any trend beyond 2012.*Boteler, R.,USA Motor Update 2009, inEnergy Efficient Motor DrivenSystems Conference (EEMODS).200984.National Impact AnalysisBase-Case Efficiency Projection for ECG 1 (example)1‐5hp80%90%100%50%60%70%EL4EL330%40%50%EL2EL1EL00%10%20% 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 585 20 1

20 1 20 1 20 1 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 2 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 3 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4 20 4National Impact AnalysisStandards-Case Efficiency Projection• Depicts the projected mix of electric motor efficiencies sold for thedifferent efficiencystandards cases.– In the compliance year: Equipment with efficiency below thestandard levels “roll up” to the standard level.–Beyond the compliance year forequipment class groups 1 andBeyondthecomplianceyearforequipmentclassgroups1and4, DOE assumed that the level immediately above the standardwould show a similar increase in market penetration as theNEMA Premium motors in the base case.NEMAPremiummotorsinthebasecase– For equipment class groups 2and 3, DOE kept the standardcase efficiency distributions constant and equal to thecomplianceyear.86National Impact AnalysisT i l St d d L lTSLEquipment Class groupFormulation CriteriaTrialStandardLevels12341EL 1 EL 1 EL 0 EL 1Each equipment class moves up to one efficiency fromthe current baseline, with the exception of fire-pumpmotors, which remain at their baseline level.2EL 2 EL 1 EL 0 EL2NEMA Premium levels for all equipment class groupswith the exception for fire-pump motors, which remain atthe baseline3EL 3 EL 2 EL 1 EL 3One NEMA band above NEMA premium for allequipment class groups except fire-pump motors, whichmove up to NEMA premiummoveuptoNEMApremium4EL 4 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4Maximum technologically feasible level (max-tech) for allequipment class groups.87National Impact AnalysisFull Fuel Cycle Cumulative National Energy Savings (quads)Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4Group 10 836 3810 0212 85(NEMA Design A and B)0.836.3810.0212.85Group 2(NEMA Design C)0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03Group 30 000 000 000 00Group3(Fire Pump Electric Motors)0.000.000.000.00Group 4(Brake Motors)0.26 0.59 0.73 0.83Total All Classes1.11 6.98 10.78 13.7188National Impact AnalysisN t P t V l f C B fit Di t d t 3%NetPresentValue ofConsumerBenefit,Discountedat3%(billion 2012$)Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4Group 1Group1(NEMA Design A and B)4.5 20.7 1.5 -41.2Group 2(NEMA Design C)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Group 3(Fire Pump Electric Motors)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Group 4(Brake Motors)1.3 2.5 1.5 -1.2(BrakeMotors)Total All Classes5.8 23.3 3.0 -42.489National Impact AnalysisN t P t V l f C B fit Di t d t7%NetPresentValue ofConsumerBenefit,Discountedat(billion 2012$)Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4Group 1Group1(NEMA Design A and B)2.2 7.7 -3.7 -29.1Group 2(NEMA Design C)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Group 3(Fire Pump Electric Motors)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Group 4(Brake Motors)0.5 1.0 0.3 -1.2(BrakeMotors)Total All Classes2.7 8.7 -3.4 -30.390National Impact AnalysisIssue 8:DOE seeks comments on its decision to useffi i t d f i t l 1 d 4 defficiencytrendsfor equipmentclass groups1and4andconstant efficiencies for equipment class groups 2 and 3 overthe analysis period. Specifically, DOE would like comments onadditional sources of data on trends in efficiency improvementadditionalsourcesofdataontrendsinefficiencyimprovement.Issue 9:DOE seeks comment on any sources of data thatcould be used to establish the elasticity of electric motorcouldbeusedtoestablishtheelasticityofelectricmotorshipments with respect to changes in purchase price.91National Impact AnalysisIssue 10:DOE seeks comment on its scaled values for MSPs.In particular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology forscaling MSP data from the representative equipment classesto the remaining equipment classes.Issue 11:DOE seeks comment on the scaled values for motorweights. In particular, DOE seeks comments on itsmethodology for scaling weight data from the representativeequipment classes to the remaining equipment classes.Issue 12:DOE seeks comment on the trial standard levels(TSLs) developed for the NOPR.Issue 25:Currently, DOE’s reference case projects that pricesfor future shipments of motors will remain constant. DOE iski i t th i t f thiti92seekinginputonthe appropriateness ofthis assumption.NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact93AnalysisRegulatory Impact AnalysisPurpose• Evaluate non-regulatory alternatives to proposed standards.Method• DOE uses modified NIA spreadsheets to evaluate the nonregulatoryalternatives:yԟConsumer rebates;ԟConsumer tax credits;Manufacturer tax credits;ԟManufacturertaxcredits;ԟVoluntary energy efficiency targets;ԟEarly replacement; andԟBulk government purchase.94NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact95AnalysisManufacturer Impact Analysis OverviewPurpose• To assess the impacts of standards on manufacturers;•Toidentify and estimate impacts on manufacturer sub-groupsidentifyandestimateimpactsonmanufacturersubthat may be more severely affected than the industry as awhole;•Toexamine theimpacts of standards on direct employmentexaminetheimpactsofstandardsondirectemploymentand manufacturing capacity; and• To examine the cumulative regulatory impact on the industry.Methodology• Analyze industry cash flow and industry net present value(INPV) through use of the Government Regulatory ImpactModel (GRIM); and• Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, develop96sub-group analysis, and address qualitative issues.Manufacturer Impact Analysis Methodology•Phase 1ԟDOE creates an industry profile to characterize the market andidentify important issues that require further investigation.Ph 2•ase2ԟDOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and an interviewquestionnaire to guide subsequent discussions with manufacturers.Phase3•ԟDOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts ofstandards both quantitatively (using the Government RegulatoryImpact Model) and qualitatively (impacts on competition,ImpactModel)andqualitatively(impactsoncompetition,manufacturing capacity, employment, and regulatory burden).Phase 2Phase 3Phase 1IndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIM*DevelopinterviewguideInterviews&industrywide /subgroupAssess directemployment,competition,cumulative97gsubgroupanalysisburdensManufacturer Impact Analysis Key Issues• Efficiency Levels above NEMA PremiumԟEfficiency levels beyond NEMA Premium would require asignificant level of investment from motor manufacturers.ԟThere are potential safety concerns with using copper rotorsdue to the higher melting point of copper.ԟTheprice of copper is volatile.pp• Increase in Equipment RepairsԟCustomers would be more likely to rewind old, less efficientmotors as opposed topurchasenewer more efficient andmotors,asopposedtopurchasenewermoreefficientandcompliant motors if standards are increased.• EnforcementManufacturers believe there is alack of enforcement ofԟManufacturersbelievethereisalackofenforcementofcurrent motor standards and are concerned about newstandards if those will not be strictly enforced.98Manufacturer ImpactAnalysis ScenariosAnalyzed• DOE Modeled Three Different Markup ScenariosԟFlat Markup, Preservation ofOperating Profit Markup, andTwo-Tiered Markup• Least Severe for Manufacturers – Flat Markup ScenarioԟIn the flat markup scenario manufacturers fully pass throughadditional costs to their costumers and maintain theirgrossmargin in the standards case.• Most Severe for Manufacturers – Preservation of Operating ProfitMarkupor Two-Tiered MarkupScenarioԟIn the preservation of operating profit markup scenariomanufacturers maintain the same level of operating profit inabsolute dollars in the standardscase as in the base case,despite a higher level of investment.ԟIn the two-tiered markup scenario higher standards result inlower manufacturer markups forproducts above NEMA99Premium.Manufacturer Impact Analysis INPV Results (LeastSevere)• Flat Markup ScenarioUnitsBaseCaseTrial Standard Level1234INPV (2012$ millions) 3,371.2 3,378.7 3,759.2 4,443.7 5,241.3Change in INPV(2012$ millions) - 7.5 388.0 1,072.5 1,870.1(%) - 0.2 11.5 31.8 55.5Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.1 57.4 611.7 620.6Capital Con ersion Costs(2012$ millions)0 026 4220 5699 8CapitalConversionCosts(2012$millions)-....Total Conversion Costs (2012$millions) - 6.2 83.7 832.3 1,320.4100Manufacturer Impact Analysis INPV Results (MostSevere)• Preservation of Operating Profit Markup ScenarioUnitsBaseCaseTrial Standard Level1234INPV (2012$ millions) 3,371.2 3,019.5 3,089.7 2,356.8 1,383.1Change in INPV(2012$ millions) - (351.7) (281.5) (1,014.4) (1,988.1)(%) - (10.4) (8.4) (30.1) (59.0)Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.1 57.4 611.7 620.6•TwoTiered Markup ScenarioCapital Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 0.0 26.4 220.5 699.8Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.2 83.7 832.3 1,320.4-TieredMarkupScenarioUnitsBaseCaseTrial Standard Level1234INPV (2012$ millions) 3,371.2 3,374.3 3,087.6 2,979.6 3,335.7Change in INPV(2012$ millions) - 3.2 (283.5) (391.6) (35.5)(%) - 0.1 (8.4) (11.6) (1.1)Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.1 57.4 611.7 620.6Capital Conversion Costs(2012$ millions)- 0.0 26.4 220.5 699.8101p( )Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.2 83.7 832.3 1,320.4Manufacturer Impact Analysis Small BusinessImpacts• DOE identified 13 electric motor small businessmanufacturers.ԟFive smallbusinesses manufacture specialty motors notFivesmallbusinessesmanufacturespecialtymotorsnotcurrently subject to motor standards, but would be coveredunder the proposed expanded scope. DOE believes this groupcould be significantlyimpacted bytheproposed standards.y p y ppԟFive small businesses only manufacture a small amount ofcovered motors and primarily focus on other types of motorsnot covered bythis rulemaking. DOE does not believe theproposed standards would significantly impact thesebusinesses, since less than 10 percent of their revenues comefrom motors covered by this rulemaking.ԟThree small businesses primarily manufacture motors thatalready meet the proposed efficiency levels. DOE does notbelieve the proposed standards would significantly impact102these businesses.Request for CommentIssue 1:DOE requests comment on the potential impactsof new and amended standards on small electric motorofnewandamendedstandardsonsmallelectricmotormanufacturers,especially regarding DOE’s proposedexpansion of scope of covered electric motors.103Public Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impacts8Results and Proposed Standards104NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact105AnalysisEmissions Impact AnalysisPurpose• To report emission impacts resulting from amended energyconservation standards, including changes in power planti i d f ll f l l i iemissions andfullfuelcycle emissions.Method• DOE used the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) toderive emissions factors (physical units per unit of energy savings)for carbon dioxide (CO2) and several other gases.Results• Energy savings from the proposed standards reduce cumulativeemissions by:• 396.1 million metric tons(Mt)of CO2,( )• 499.4 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX),• 674.4 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2).106Monetization of Emission Reductions BenefitsPurpose• To estimate the potential monetary benefit of reduced power plantemissions resulting from the considered standard levels.Method• DOE used the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) valuesdeveloped through interagency process.ԟSCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incrementaldamage resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,including but not limited to agricultural productivity loss, humanhealth effects, property damage from rising sea level, andchanges in the ecosystem.• The most recent interagency estimates of the potential globalbenefits resulting from reduced CO2emissions in 2015 are $11.8,$39.7, $61.2, and $117.0 per metric ton in 2012 dollars.• For emission reductions that occur in later years, these values107grow in real terms over time.Monetization of Emission Reductions BenefitsResults (Full Fuel Cycle Emissions), million 2012$TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4CO2*457 to6,3782,502 to36,5643,831 to56,1434,888 to71,552NOX– 3% discountrate117635972 1,241NO7% discountX–7%discountrate60285432 554* Range of the economic value of CO2reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit ofreduced CO2emissions.108NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact109AnalysisUtility Impact AnalysisPurpose• To assess the changes in electricinstalled capacity and generation thatwould result from standards.Methodology• DOE modeled the energy savings impacts from the consideredstandard levels usingNEMS-BT togenerate forecasts that deviatefrom the AEO reference case.Results•Changesin electric installed capacity and powergeneration at theinelectricinstalledcapacityandpowergenerationattheproposed standard level:InstalledCapacityR d ti (MW)Electricity GenerationReduction (GWh)Reduction(MW)Reduction(GWh)2020422 7,19220251,212 14,22120302,546 20,04720354,469 24,48011020405,685 28,181NOPR Rulemaking StageFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleLife-CycleCost andRegulatoryImpactMarket &TechnologyScreeningEngineeringAnalysisEnergy Use &End Use LoadCharacterizationCostandPaybackPeriod AnalysisImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactScreeningAnalysisCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactEquipmentPriceDeterminationManufacturerImpactAnalysisAnalysisEnvironmentalImpact111AnalysisEmployment Impact AnalysisPurpose• To assess the overall impact on indirect national employment fromstandards that resultfrom shifting consumer expenditures among goodsstandardsthatresultfromshiftingconsumerexpendituresamonggoodsand services and changing equipment and energy costs.M th d lMethodology• DOE used the Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET) modelfor the evaluation of indirect employment impacts. (ImSET is an updatefIMBUILD)oResults• DOE anticipates that net labor market impacts will be negligible overtime due to the small magnitude of the short-term effects.112Public Meeting Slides Topics1Overview2Market and Technology Assessment3Engineering Analysis4Markups, Energy Use Analysis5Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis7Environmental, Utility, and Employment impacts8Results and Proposed Standards113Results and Proposed StandardsTSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings(quads)NIA and MIA resultsNationalFullFuelCycleEnergySavings(quads)1.17.010.8 13.7NPV of Consumer Benefits(2012$ billion )3% discount rate6233-423%discountrate7% discount rate 39-3 -30Manufacturer ImpactsManufacturerImpactsIndustry NPV(2012$ million)7.5 - (351.7)388.0 - (283.5)1,072.5 - (1,014.4) 1,870 - (1,988.1)Industry NPV (%h )0.2 -(10.4)11.5 -(8.4)31.8 -(30.1)55.5 -(59.0)change)( )( )( )( )114Results and Proposed StandardsEmissions ImpactsTSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4Cumulative Emissions Reduction(Total FFC Emissions)EmissionsImpacts( )CO2million metrictons66396610. 777SO2thousand tons1066741,042 1,325NOXthousand tons82499770 980Hg tons0.10.81.3 1.6N2O thousand tons1.38.513 17CH4thousand tons3021,8882,913 3,706Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)CO2012$million*457 to 6 3782 502 to 36 5643 831 to 56 1434 888 to 71 5522million457to6,3782,502to36,5643,831to56,1434,888to71,552NOX– 3% discountrate 2012$ million117635972.2 1,241.0NOX– 7% discountrate 2012$million60.2285.0432.0 553.8115$* Range of the economic value of CO2reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2emissions.Results and Proposed StandardsLCC and PBP resultsConsumer Mean LCC Savings (2012$)*TSL 1TSL 2TSL 3 TSL4E i t Cl G 14313268417LCCandPBPresultsEquipmentClassGroup14313268-417Equipment Class Group 23838-285 -285Equipment Class Group 3N/A**N/A**-61 -763Equipment Class Group4137259210 -291p pWeighted Average4813975 -410Consumer Median PBP (years)*TSL 1TSL 2TSL 3TSL 4Equipment Class Group 11.13.36.7 29.9Equipment Class Group 25.05.022.8 22.8Equipment Class Group 3N/A**N/A**3,299 11,957Equipment Class Group 41.21.93.7 16.0Weighted Average1.13.26.6 29.1* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for therepresentative units in thegroup116representativeunitsinthegroup.**For equipment class group 3, the proposed standard level is the same asthe baseline; thus, no customersare affected.Results and Proposed StandardsConsumer ImpactsLCC Impacts Distribution* TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4Equipment Class Group 1Net Cost %0.38.438.0 84.6ConsumerImpactsNet Benefit %9.732.040.4 7.6No Impact %90.059.621.5 7.7Equipment Class Group 2Net Cost %21.521.594.7 94.7Net Benefit %68.668.65.3 5.3No Impact %9.99.90.0 0.0Equipment Class Group 3Net Cost %0.00.081.7 100.0Net Benefit%0 00 00 00 0NetBenefit....No Impact %0.00.018.3 0.0Equipment Class Group 4Net Cost %1.010.833.1 79.6Net Benefit %31.860.865.8 19.9No Impact %67.328.41.1 0.3Weighted AverageNet Cost %0.48.637.8 84.4Net Benefit %11.033.741.8 8.3NI t%88 657 820 47 3117NoImpact%88.657.820.47.3* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for therepresentative units in the group.Results and Proposed StandardsP i E ti t*Low Net BenefitsHigh Net BenefitsAnnualized Benefits and Costs Discount RatePrimaryEstimate*LowNetBenefitsEstimate*HighNetBenefitsEstimate*million 2012$/yearBenefitsOperating Cost Savings7%1,114 924 1,358OperatingCostSavings3%1,730 1,421 2,134CO2at $11.8/t case 5% 155 134 179CO2at $39.7/t case 3%586 506 679CO2at $61.2/t case 2.5% 882 762 1022$CO2at117/t case 3% 1,811 1,565 2,098NOXat $2,639/ton7%21.46 18.55 24.683%31.48 27.20 36.397% plus CO2range1,290 to 2,947 1,077 to 2,507 1,562 to 3,481Total Benefits†7%1,721 1,449 2,0613% plus CO2range1,916 to 3,572 1,583 to 3,014 2,350 to 4,2683%2,347 1,955 2,849CostsIncremental Equipment Costs7%462 492 4473%577 601 569Net Benefits7%plus CO2range585 to 2,016 1,115 to 3,033 1,353 to 3,438118Total*p2g7%957 1,614 1,8873% plus CO2range982 to 2,413 1,781 to 3,700 1,957 to 4,0433%1,354 2,280 2,492*Total at 7% and 3% used CO2value at $39.7/t caseHow to Submit Written CommentsIn all correspondence, please refer to the electric motors rulemaking by:– Standards for Electric Motors;– Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027; and–Regulation IdentificationNumber (RIN)1904-AC28RegulationIdentificationNumber(RIN).Email:ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.govPostal:CourierMs. Brenda EdwardsMs. Brenda EdwardsMs.BrendaEdwards.BrendaEdwardsU.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Building Technologies Program, Suite 600Mailstop EE-5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW1000 I d d A SWW hi t DC 200241000IndependenceAvenue,SWWashington,DC20024Washington, DC 20585-0121 Tel: 202 586-2945Comment Period closes:February 4 2014 11:59PMET119CommentPeriodcloses:February4,2014,11:59PMETBackup Slides120Exclusions Defined• Air-over Electric Motor• An electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the airstream ofa fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose primarypurpose is providing airflow to an application other than the motordriving it.• Component Set of Electric Motor• A combination of motor parts that require the addition of more than twoendshields (and their associated bearings) to create an operablet Th t i t f bi ti f t t fmotor.These parts may consistofany combination ofa statorframe,wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields. For the purpose of thisdefinition, the term “operable motor” means an electric motorengineered for performing in accordance with nameplate ratingsengineeredforperforminginaccordancewithnameplateratings.121Exclusions Defined (continued)• Liquid-cooled Electric Motors• A motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated coolingapparatus such that the liquid or iquid-filled conductors come into directcontact with the parts of the motor.•Submersible ElectricMotorSubmersibleElectric• An electric motor that (1) is intended to operate continuously only whilesubmerged in liquid, (2) is capable of operation while submerged inliquid for an indefiniteperiod of time,and(3)has been sealed to, ()prevent ingress of liquid from contacting the motor’s internal parts.•Inverter-only Electric MotoronlyElectricMotor• An electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely with aninverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connected topolyphase,sinusoidal linepower.122p yp, pDesign B, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed123Design B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed124Design B, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed125Design C, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed126Design C, 50-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed127