[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)] PRODUCT(S)]

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

Energy Conservation StandardsNotice of Proposed Rulemaking forElectric Motors

James Raba

Electric MotorsDecember 11 2013

Department of EBuilding TechnolEERE-2010-BT-STD-002El M t 2010 STD 00

1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

December 11, 2013 ElecMotors-2010-STD-00
Welcome

• 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 complet

transcript of this meeting.

– Be concise – share the ‘air-time’.– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sideb

conversations.

– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your h

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items.

• Agenda Review.• Opening Remarks.

2
Agenda

9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome, Introductions, Ground Rule9:05 – 9:15 am Opening Remarks, Background, Regu

History.

9:15 – 9:45 am Opening Comments from Participants

9:45 – 10:15 am Market and Technology Assessment10:15 – 10:30 am Break.10:30 – 11:30 am 11:30 am Engineering Analysis Engineering Analysis.

11:30 – 12:00 pm Markups and Energy Use Analysis; an

Cycle Cost Analysis Cycle Cost Analysis.

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch.

3
Agenda

1:00 – 1:30 pm Shipments, National Impact, and Reg

Impact Analysis.

1:30 – 1:45 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis.1:45 – 2:00 pm Environmental Impact, Utility Impact, 

Employment Impact Analysis.

2:00 – 2:15 pm Summary of Results and Proposed S

2:15 – 2:40 pm 2:40 pm Closing Comments from Closing Comments from Participants Participants.

2:40 – 2:45 pm Closing Remarks.

4
Listening Via the Webcast

• The Department is broadcasting this meeting liv

the Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate 

stakeholders that are unable to attend the public stakeholders that are unable to attend the public

meeting in person.

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen 

view the slides.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit writte

comments after the public meeting

5

comments after the public meeting.
Purpose of the Public Meeting

• Present the procedural and analytical approache

evaluate energy conservation standards for elecmotors.

• Invite comment on comment on the energy conservation stan

conservation stan

notice of proposed rulemaking document. 

• Discuss next steps in the rulemaking. • Invite participants to provide summary comment

statements and raise additional issues for discus

6
Comments from Participants

• Participants are invited to provide summary com

or statements and raise additional issues for discussion.

• NOPR comment period NOPR comment period closes February 4, 201

February 4, 201

7
Issues for Discussion

• Issue “boxes” correspond to the list of issues fo

Department seeks comments.

• The list of issues is in the NOPR document, ava

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EEBT-STD

-0027

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and informconcerning its proposed standards for Electric Motors. Isth t d t th i d i DOE’ bli h d th

a

t correspon

d

to those raise

d in DOE’s publi

s

h

e

d mat 

e

will be numbered in accordance with that material. Whetinvited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome o

part of DOE’s analysis

• The deadline for submitting comments is Febru

part of DOE s analysis.

8
How to Submit Written Comments

In all correspondence, please refer to the electric motors rulem

– Standards for Electric Motors;– Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027; and– Regulation Identification Regulation Identification Number (RIN) Number (RIN) 1904

-AC28.

Email: ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.gov

Postal: CourierMs. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards . Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Building Technologies ProgMailstop EE-5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW1000 I d d A SW 1000 In

depen

dence 

Avenue, SW W hi t DC 20024 Washing

ton, DC 20024

Washington, DC 20585-0121 Tel: 202 586-2945

Comment Period closes: February 4 2014 11:59 PM ET

9

Comment Period closes: February

4, 2014, 11:59 PM ET
Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide ope

remarks or statements at this time.

10
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utilit

y py p , and Em

plo

yment im

pact

8 Results and Proposed Standards 

11
Regulatory History

• Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 

Pub. L. 94-163

– A d db mended by the E P li A t f 1992 (EPACT) 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), 

102-486 to add the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles” and inc

electric motors electric motors.

• Ene gy r Po cy ct licy Act of 1992 ( C) EPA T Pub 0 . L. 10

– Amended EPCA to provide definitions, test procedures

provisions, energy efficiency standards, and complian

certification requirements for certain commercial and icertification requirements for certain commercial and i

electric motors.

12
Regulatory History

• Energy Independence and Security Act of 20

(EISA) Pub. L. 110-140

– Amended the Amended the energy conservation conservation standards for elect

standards for elect

provided under EPACT 1992.

– Established energy efficiency standards for a broader 

electric motors not previously electric motors, not previously covered covered.

– Compliance date for new standards was December 19

• Current R l ki u emaking

– EPCA requires DOE to periodically determine by rule w

to amend energy conservation standards for electric m

– Any standards that DOE prescribes would require a co

date not earlier than December 19, 2015.

13
Issue 13: Issue 13: DOE seeks comment on its DOE seeks comment on its proposed comp

proposed comp

date of December 19, 2015.

14
Background and Overview

• EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) directs DOE to consider s

factors when setting energy conservation standards

EPCA F t EPCA

Fac

t

o

r DOE A l i DOE

Analysis

1. Economic impact on consumers 

and manufacturers

Life-cycle cost analysi

Manufacturer impact ana

2. Lifetime operating cost savings Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle cost analysi

cycle cost analysi

3. Total projected energy savings National impact analys

4. Impact on utility or performance Engineering analysis Screenin

g y anal

ysis

5. Impact of any lessening of 

competition Manufacturer impact ana

6. Need for national energy National impact analys

conservation National impact analys

7. Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant

Environmental assessm

Utility impact analysis

Employment impact anal

15

Employment impact anal
Background and Overview

2012 2013 2014 2015 

Milestone 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Publication Decem

NOPR Public Meeting NOPR Public Meeting D 

Decem

Comment Period Ends FebruFinal Rule Publication (projected) Ma

16
Consensus Agreement

• DOE’s proposed rule closely mirrors a consensus agreem

a coalition of motor manufacturers and energy efficiency a

• National Electrical Manufacturers Association • Alliance to Save Energy • Northwest Power 

Council gy

• American Council for an Energy‐Efficient

Economy • EarthJustice • Northeast Energy 

• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance • Natural Resources Defense Council • Appliance Standar

• The proposal, as recommended by the coalition, would bri

currently-uncovered motors to NEMA’s “Premium” levels w

the current levels for others the current levels for others.

– Highest net present value (NPV) of all analyzed levels– Proposes levels manufacturers can implement that are 

understandable to them and that efficiency advocates understandable to them and that efficiency advocates 

• DOE’s proposal sets higher standards than the coalition 

recommendation for

“

U frame

” motors and expands covera

17

recommendation for

U

-frame motors and expands covera

“integral brake motors.”
Test Procedure Modifications

• DOE has recently issued a test procedure final rule on 

6, 2013.

• The new test procedure final rule:

– adopts definitions, which will determine the applicability o

regulations to various types of electric motors. 

– amends the energy efficiency test procedures for electric 

allow currently unregulated motors to be tested by clarifysetu

p needed to facilitate testin

g yp of these types of electri

18
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview

2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utilit

y py p , and Em

plo

yment im

pact

8 Results and Proposed Standards 

19
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

20
Market and Technology Assessment

Purpose

• Characterize the electric motor market and ind• Define the scope of coverage for energy conse

standards.

• Identify the technology options to improve elec

efficiency.

• Establish equipment classes.

21
Relationship of MTA to Other Analyses

Market and 

Technology 

Assessment Equipment Class

Technology options to improve efficiency to improve efficiency

Screening Analysis

Design options to improve efficiency

Ei i ng neering 

Analysis

22
Current Electric Motor Standards

• Current energy conservation standards exist for th

groups of electric motors: groups of electric motors:

Electric Motor Category Horsepower Range Energy CoElectric Motor Category Horsepower Range Standa

General Purpose Electric 

Motors (Subtype I) 1 to 200 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 

General Purpose Electric 

Motors (Subtype II) 1 to 200 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 

NEMA Design B and

IEC Design N Motors 201 to 500 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 IEC Design

N Motors

Fire Pump Electric Motors 1 to 500 (inclusive) MG 1-2011 

23
Expanded Electric Motor Standards

• DOE is proposing amending DOE is proposing amending the energy conservation standards for 

the energy conservation standards for 

by applying the standards currently in place to a wider scope of elecwhich DOE does not currently regulate. 

• The motors 

regulated under expanded scope of the proposed stand

following 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) 60 Operates on polyphase alternating current (AC) 60-hertz sinusoidal line p

hertz sinusoidal line p

Has 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,Is rated 600 volts or less,

Has a three-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent) or an encloNEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent),Has no more than 500 horsepower, but greater than or equal to 1 horsepkilowatt equivalent) and

24

kilowatt equivalent), andMeets all of the performance requirements of a NEMA Design A, B, or C emotor or an IEC design N or H electric motor
Expanded Electric Motor Standards

• DOE is proposing to set standards for the followin

motor types:

Electric Motor Types

NEMA Design A motors from 201 to 500 horsepower

Electric motors with non-standor flanges

Electric motors with moisture-resistant windings, sealed or encapsulated windings

Electric motors with non-standmounting feet

Partial electric motors Partial electric motors Electric motors with special sh

Electric motors with special sh

Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motors

Vertical hollow-shaft electric m

Immersible electric motors Immersible electric motors Electric motors with sleeve be

Electric motors with sleeve be

Integral brake electric motors Electric motors with thrust beaNon-integral brake electric motors 

25
Expanded Electric Motor Standards

• DOE is proposing not to require the following type

motors to meet standards:

• Air-over Electric Motors• C t S t f El t i M t Componen

t

S

e

ts o

f Elec

t

ric 

M

o

tors

• Li

quid-cooled Electric Motors

• Submersible Electric Motors• Definite-purpose, Inverter-fed Electric Motors

26
Request for Comment

Issue 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 a rating of under 1 horsepower and (2) open, special or definite purpose (inclusive) electric motors. The types of data that DOE seeks include, but are not limited to, the f ll i t i following ca

tegories: effi i di t ib ti ffi

ciency di

s

t

rib

ution; shi t pmen

t

breakdown between horsepower ratings, open andenclosed motors, and between general and special and 

definite purpose electric purpose electric motors; and typical applications motors; and typical applications

that use these motors.

Issue 30: DOE requests comment on the nine characteristics of electric motors and their appropriateness for outlining scope of standards.

27
Electric Motors Equipment Classes and 

• 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 

le e s, suc as ea u es a ec g co su e u y ( U S 

v

els, such as fea

t

u

res

affectin

g co

nsu

m

er 

utilit

y

(42 

U.S

• The equipment classes are divided based on the comb

– NEMA D i T B k d Fi P R ti NEMA

Design 

Type, 

Bra

kes, an

d Fire 

Pump 

R

ating,

– Horsepower rating,– Pole configuration, and

– Enclosure type

28
Electric Motors Equipment Classes and 

• Equipment class group is a collection of a large numbe

equipment classes with the same design type.

• DOE created four equipment class groups by dividing t

created four equipment class groups by dividing t

population of electric motors based on the following modesigns:

– NEMA Design A or B (ECG 1)

– NEMA Design C (ECG 2)

– Fire pump electric motors 

( ) ECG 3

)

– Electric motors with brakes (ECG 4)

29
Th 580 t ti l i t l hi h 

Electric Motors Equipment Classes and 

• There are 580 po

tenti

al equipmen

t classes whi

c

h 

of all permutations of electric motor design types

Equipment 

Class Group Electric Motor Design Horsepower Poles 

1 NEMA Design A & B

* 1 500 2468 

Equipment Class Group Electric Motor Design Horsepower Poles 

1 NEMA Design

A

& B* 1‐500 2, 4, 6,

8 

2 NEMA Desi

g

n C* 1‐200 4, 6, 8 

1 NEMA Design

A

&

B 1-500

2, 4, 6, 8

2 NEMA Design C* 1-200 4, 6, 8 

g , , 

3 Fire Pump* 1‐500 2, 4, 6,

8 

4 Brake Motors* 1‐30 4, 6,

8 

3 Fire Pump* 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 4 

Brake Motors* 1-30 4, 6, 8

*Including IEC equivalents.

30
Request for Comment

I 14 ssue 14: DOE k t it d i i t l DOE see

ks commen

t on its 

decision 

to anal

brake motors in a separate equipment class group.

Issue 15: DOE seeks comment on its decision to limit standards for brake motors to 1-30 HP, and 4, 6, and 8 p g ole confi

gurations. DOE selected these ratin

gs after 

reviewing manufacturer catalogs and only finding brakmotors in these configurations.

31
Technology Assessment

DOE id tifi d f ll i t h l ti th t ld b 

Type of Motor Losses Technology O

ption

• DOE identifi

e

d

following 

tec

hnology options th

a

t could

be u

reduce motor losses and improve motor efficiency :

yp gy p

Stator I

2R Losses Increase cross-sectional area of copper in stato

Decrease the length of coil extensions

U di t t

Rotor I

2R Losses

Use a die-cast copper rotor cage

Increase cross-sectional area of rotor conductoIncrease cross-sectional area of end rings

Core Losses

Use electrical steel laminations with lower losseUse thinner steel laminations

Increase stack length (i e add electrical steel lIncrease stack length (i.e., add electrical steel l

Friction and Windage Losses

Optimize bearing and lubrication selectionImprove cooling system design

32

Stray Load Losses

Reduce skew on rotor cageImprove rotor bar insulation
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview

2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utilit

y py p , and Em

plo

yment im

pact

8 Results and Proposed Standards 

33
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

34
Engineering Analysis

Purpose

• To evaluate design options that improve efficiency.

• To characterize manufacturer selling price (MSP) ve

efficiency for higher-efficiency electric motors.

Downstream Ana

Manufacturer Selling Price – Efficiency Relationship

• Life-Cycle Cost an

Period Analysis

facturer 

g Price

• National Impact An• Manufacturer Impa

Analysis

Manuf

Sellin

Efficiency Level

35

Efficiency Level Analysis
Engineering Analysis: Choose Represen

Units

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE selected five representative units.• Analysis for all covered motors was based on 

representative units.

Develop ELs

Rep. Unit

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

ECG

ECG

represented

Rep. Unit

Motor Design

Rep. Unit

Frame

Enclosure

Rep. Unit

Horsepowe

NEMA D i

Totall

y

5

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

1 1,3, and

4

NEMA

Design

B

y

Enclosed,

Fan Cooled

3075

NEMA Design Totally Develop

5

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

2

2

NEMA Design

C Enclosed,

Fan Cooled

50

36

Equipment

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis: Choose Represen

Units

Choose 

Representative 

Units 98.0

100.0

Develop ELs 30 HP

75 HP

94.096.0

ailable (%)

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis 90.0

5 HP

92.0

ciency Ava Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop 84 0

86.088.0

erage Effic Develop

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

80.082.084.0

AVe

37

Equipment

Classes Not 

Analyzed

1 to 10 HP 15 to 50 HP 60 to 
Engineering Analysis:

Develop ELs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE identified efficiency levels (ELs) that spa

electric motor efficiencies from the baseline to 

technologically feasible efficiency.

• Factors DOE considered in settin

g ELs:

Develop ELs

Commercially available and software mo

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

NEMA standard nominal efficiencies (e.g. Tab

Model High efficiencies

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

Benchmark efficiency levels (e.g. NEMA Pr

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

38

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis:

Develop ELs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Representative

Unit

EL

0

(Baseline)

EL

1

(EPACT

1992)

EL

2

(NEMA

Premium)

EL

3

(Best‐

Marke

Efficiency Levels for Equipment Class Groups

1 and

4

Develop ELs

( ) 1992) Premium) Marke

5 hp

(ECG

1 and 4) 82.5% 87.5% 89.5% 90.2

30 hp

(ECG

1 and 4) 89.5% 92.4% 93.6% 94.1

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

(ECG

1 and 4)

75 hp

(ECG

1 only**) 93.0% 94.1% 95.4% 95.8

*Best‐in‐market represents the best or near best efficiency level at which current manufacturers are p

electric motors.

**ECG

4 does not have a 75 horsepower representative unit because DOE was unable to find brake m

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

**ECG

4 does not have a 75‐horsepower representative unit because DOE was unable to find brake m

with such a high horsepower rating

Efficiency Levels for Equipment Class Group

3

Representative EL

0 EL

1 EL

2 Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

Representative

Unit

EL

0

(EPACT 1992) (NEMA Premium) (Best‐i

Market

5 hp 87.5% 89.5% 90.2% 

30

h

p 92.4% 93.6% 94.1% 

39

Equipment

Classes Not 

Analyzed

p

75 hp 94.1% 95.4% 95.8% 
Engineering Analysis:

Develop ELs

Choose 

Representative 

Units Efficiency Levels for Equipment Class Group

2

Develop ELs Representative Unit EL

1

(EPACT 1992)

EL

2

(NEMA

Premium)

5

h

p 87.5% 89.5% 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

p

50 hp 92.4% 93.6% 

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

40

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis: 

Test and Teardown Analysis

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE purchased and tested five electric motors r

EL 0 through 3 for equipment class group 1 as wmotors re

p g qp g 

resentin

g EL 0 for e

qui

pment class 

gr

• DOE conducted teardowns on the tested motors 

bill of materials, including components and weig

Develop ELs

bill of materials, including components and weig

• DOE supplemented the findings from its tests an

through:

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

– a review of data collected from manufacturer

prices, efficiencies, and other features of var

electric motors and

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop electric motors, and

– interviews with manufacturers about the tech

associated costs used to improve efficiency 

Develop

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

41

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis:

Modeling High Efficiency Designs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• The software modeling was used to develop th

efficiency levels (i.e., the max-tech levels) tech

feasible for each representative unit analyzed feasible for each representative unit analyzed. 

• DOE used proprietary software program called 

conduct software modeling. 

• The estimated maximum stack len

gth, the max

Develop ELs

g ,

length found during tear-downs, and the maximlength modeled for a given representative unit 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

Estimated Maximum Stack

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

Representative

Unit

Estimated

Maximum Stack

Length

Maximum Stack

Length of

a Torn

Down Motor

30 Horsepower

Design

B Develop 8.87 in. 8.02 in. (EL

2) 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

Design

B ( )

75 Horsepower

Design

B 13.06 in. 11.33 in. (EL 3) 

5 Horsepower 5 80 in 4 75 in (EL 0) 

42

Equipment

Classes Not 

Analyzed

Design

C

5.80 in. 4.75 in. (EL 0)

50 Horsepower

Design

C 9.55 in. 8.67 in. (EL 0) 
Engineering Analysis:

Develop Material Cost Inputs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE calculated manufacturer production cos

disassemblin

g p electric motors from multi

ple m

and creating bills of materials (BOMs).

• BOMs describe the product components in d

Develop ELs

BOMs describe the product components in d

including labor hour estimates based on subjexpert feedback and a stator winding analysidetermine whether it was hand or machine w

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

• DOE determined materials prices and labor r

throu

gh conversations with manufacturers an

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop g 

experts.

• DOE determined marku

ps and labor rates fro

Develop

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

43

p

Classes Not data, SEC filings, and manufacturer interview

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis:

Develop Material Cost Inputs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE then applied manufacturer markups to t

obtain MSPs.

Markup / Cost 

Input

Markup 

Percent Notes

Handling and scrap 25% Standard handling of materia

Develop ELs

Handling and scrap

2.5

% material

Factory overhead

17.5 % Aluminum die-cast rotors; ap

only

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

18.0 % Copper die-cast rotors ; appli

Fully-burdened hourly labor rate $33.46 Aggregate cost of domestic a

applied to total labor hours

A f SG&A R&D 

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

Non-production

37.0 %

Accounts for SG&A, R&D, waprovisions, and profit factor; aand materials (5 and 30 horse

45 0

%

Accounts for SG&A, R&D, wa

i i d fit f t 

Develop

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

44

45.0

% provisions, an

d profit factor; a

and materials (75 horsepowe

Equipment

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis: Results

NEMA Design B, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Electric Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

NEMA Design B, 30-HorsepoweElectric Motor Engineering Anal

45

NEMA Design B, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Motor Engineering Analysis Curve
Engineering Analysis: Results

NEMA Design C, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclosed Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

46

NEMA Design C, 50-HorsepoweMotor Engineering Analysis Cu
Requests for Comment

Issue 19: Issue 19: DOE seeks comment on its estimation for la

DOE seeks comment on its estimation for la

hours for each representative unit.

Issue 20: DOE seeks comments on the cost to manufacturers to change their product lines to meet E

Issue 21: DOE seeks comments on the cost to manufacturers to change their manufacturers to change their product lines product lines to meet E

to meet E

47
Engineering Analysis:

Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyze

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Equipment Class Group I• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of th

D i B4 es gn 

B, 4-pol 5 30 d 75 h l 

le, 

5, 30, an

d 75

horsepower, enclo

motors. 

E i t Cl G II

Develop ELs

Equipmen

t Class 

Group II

• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of th

Design C, 4-pole, 5, and 50 horsepower, enclosed 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

Equipment Class Group III• Fire pump electric motors have low shipments and 

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

• Efficiency levels for these motors are derived from 

the NEMA Design B, 4-pole, 5, 30, and 75 horsepoframe motors (equipment class group I).

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

48

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis:

Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyze

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE considered two scaling methods:

– Regression equations based on relationships 

EPACT 1992 and NEMA premium efficiency 

Develop ELs

EPACT 1992 and NEMA premium efficiency 

– Incremental Improvements of motor losses.

I h i ffi i l l b d 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

• In eac

h scenario, effi

ciency levels were 

base

d o

nominal efficiency values taken from NEMA MG 12-10.

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

• Ultimately, DOE decided to use the second scali

incremental improvements of motor losses.

Based on NEMA

“Energy Efficient” (NEMA M

Develop Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

– Based on NEMA Energy Efficient” (NEMA M

Tables 12-11 & 20-A) and “Premium Efficient1-2011 Tables 12-12 & 20-B) values.

– Incremental improvements of one NEMA ban

49

Equipment

Classes Not 

Analyzed

– Incremental improvements of one NEMA ban

ELs.
Engineering Analysis:

Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyze

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• For ECG I, III*, IV (NEMA Design A & B):

– EL 0: Lowest-in-scope efficiencies for all equip

EL 1 NEMA MG 1 2011 T bl 12 11 d 20 A 

Develop ELs

– EL

1: NEMA MG

1

-2011

Tables 12

-11 an

d 20

-

A

equipment classes

– EL 2: NEMA MG 1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B 

equipment classes

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

equipment classes

– EL 3: One NEMA band above EL 1 for all equip– EL 4: One NEMA band above EL 2 for all equip*For ECG III, the efficienc

y levels are offset b

y one, i.e., Table 12

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

, y y ,,

• For ECG II (NEMA Design C):

Develop

–

E

L 0: NEMA MG 1

-2011 Table 12

-11 for all equ

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

E

L 0: NEMA MG

1 2011 Table 12 11 for all equ

– EL 1: NEMA MG 1-2011 Table 12-12 for all equ– EL 2: One NEMA band above EL 1 for all equip

50

Equipment

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Engineering Analysis:

Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyze

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Develop ELs

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analysis

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment

51

Classes Not 

Analyzed
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utilit

y py p , and Em

plo

yment im

pact

8 Results and Proposed Standards 

52
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

53
Markups Analysis

Purpose

• Characterize motor distribution channels.

• Determine consumer motor prices based on manufacture

both for baseline and higher efficiency equipment.

Method

• Identify distribution channels.• Estimate consumer prices by applying markups to manufa

prices by applying markups to manufa

selling price.

54
Markups Analysis

• Six primary distribution channels:

Channel: From Manufacturer Share of S

To OEM to End-user 50To Distributor to End-user 24To Distributor to OEM to End To Distributor to OEM to End-user 23To Contractor to End-user 0.75To Distributor to Contractor to End-user 0.75T Ed 1 5

• Other distribution channels may exist (e.g. from manufactu

OEMs, to end-users through distributors) but are estimated 

To End-user 1.5

OEMs, to end users through distributors) but are estimated 

for a minor share of the motor sales (less than one percent

55
Markups Analysis

• M k lt ar ups relate price t t f d ld (CGS) to cost of goods sold (CGS).

• Baseline markups relate price to cost for baseline product

ԟ Baseline markups indicate a consumer price that cove

retailer’s or distributor’s expenses plus profit. 

• Incremental markups relate the incremental change in con

price to the incremental change in CGS for higher-efficien

products. 

ԟ Some costs remain constant as CGS increases. ԟ Incremental markups cover only expenses that vary w

expenses that increase due to an increase in product 

that increase due to an increase in product 

• Weighting the markup values for each actor by the respec

shares of each channel yields an average overall baseline 

56

shares of each channel yields an average overall baseline 

of 1.63 and an overall incremental markup of 1.50.
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

57
Energy Use Analysis

Purpose

• Develop annual energy use data for electric motors based 

operating conditions.

Method

• DOE developed average energy use values by using typic

operating profiles associated with different applications (ecompressors, fans, and pumps).

• Developed distributions of electric motor operating hours 

motor loading to account for variability in the field.

• Focused on representative units.

58
Energy Use Analysis

• For electric motors, the energy used by the motor refers to 

losses”, the remaining energy is converted to useful mechapower.

• A l ( l d h i l ) 

Annual energy use (motors losses and mechanical power)

  Hop L HP L E      0.746

Where:

– E: Annual energy use (kWh/yr);

– HP: Motor capacity (hp);

 

HP: Motor capacity (hp);

– L: Motor load (%);– Hop: Annual operating hours (hr/yr); and– η(L): efficiency at load L (%) (L): efficiency at load L (%).

• Motor annual losses, in kWh:

( ( ))

59

Elosses  E 1 L
Energy Use Analysis

Input Preliminary Analysis NOPR Cha

NOPR Changes to Energy Use Inputs

Distribution across sectors

• Based on share of installed base • Adjusted to include 56 

motors.

• Used the same distribution across 

sectors

123 i d t i l t

• Used sector specific dis• Used additional data fro

I d t i l M t D t b 

Distribution across application by sector

• 123 industrial motor surveys or 

assessments data compiled by Washington State University, Applied Proactive Technologies 

(includes 112 assessments funded 

Industrial Motor Databa

information on motors cIndustrial Assessment COregon State Universit

( database includes morby NYSERDA) [WSU/NYSERDA database]

records, each with detaapplication and field usIndustrial Motor Databa

Operating load • Based on results data from the WSU/NYSERDA database • Used additional data fro

Industrial Motor Databa

Industry -Operating hours 

• Based on results data from the 

WSU/NYSERDA database

• Used additional data fro

Industrial Motor Databa

60

Agriculture -Operating hours 

• Multiple sources as listed in the 

preliminary analysis

• For Pumps: used data 

Department of Agricultu2007 Census of AgricuRanch Irrigation Survey
Energy Use Analysis

• Distribution of shipments across sectors (comme

industrial, agricultural). 

Horsepower 

range 

Industry 

%

Agriculture

%

Com

1-50 26.1 0.1 7

51-100 63.3 7.0 2

101-200 76 0. 3 4. 2201-500 69.1 3.0 2

Source: Easton Source: Easton Consultants I (2000) Consultants, I. (2000), Variable Frequency Drive Variable Frequency Drive. Retrieved February 9 Retrieved February 9, 2011

61
Energy Use Analysis

• Distribution across applications:

ԟ For each sector and equipment class, established dist

of ship pp ( g , p p, ments across application (e.g. fan, pump, and 

compressor).

ԟ Example for electric motors used in the industrial secto

Air Material (%) Compressor Fan Pump Material Handling Other 

Industry

1-5hp 5.1 14 10.6 41.7 28.6 

6-20hp 6.3 23.4 17.1 23.2 30 

21-50hp 12.1 20.2 17.5 19.5 30.7 

51-100hp 17.1 20.9 16.1 14.3 31.6 

101-200hp 19 21.4 14.8 6.6 38.2 

201 500hp 23 5 13 6 15 6 7 2 40 1

62

201-500hp 23.5 13.6 15.6 7.2 40.1 
Energy Use Analysis

• DOE d t i d l f l 

determined average values for annual ope

hours by application, sector, and horsepower ra

Horsepower range hp

1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-200 201-500

Industry

Air Compressors 5,729 5,568 5,986 6,440 6,398 6,023

Fans 5,932 6,332 6,469 6,538 6,590 6,817

Pumps 5,936 6,347 6,883 6,848 7,076 7,518

Material Handling Material Handling 4,902 4,577 4,681 5,488 6,431 5,990

Other 5,289 5,416 5,544 5,377 5,442 5,456

Fire Pump 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25

Commercial

Air Compressors 1,000 1,200 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

Fans 3 000 , 3 300 , 3 600 , 3 900 , 4 200 , 4 500 ,

Pumps 1,500 1,650 1,800 1,950 2,100 2,250 

Material Handling 1,959 2,165 2,380 2,567 2,753 2,939 

Other 1,959 2,165 2,380 2,567 2,753 2,939 

Fire Pump 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25

A i ltgr cu ure

Air Compressors 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

Fans 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

Pumps 1,009 1, 009 1, 009 1, 065 1, 121 1, 121

Material Handling 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 

O h 1 500 1 500 1 500 1 500 1 500 1 500

63

Other 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Fire Pump 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25
Energy Use Analysis

• DOE d t i d l f l d b DOE determined average values for load by 

application.

Application Average Load %

Air compressors 72.1

Fans 69.6

Pumps 67.0

Material Handling 58.9

Other 62.0

Fire Pumps 67.0

• Based on the test data from the engineering an

DOE modeled the motor losses as a function of using a third degree polynomial equation.

64
Energy Use Analysis

• Average annual ti b ffi i 

l energy consumption by efficien

Rep. 

Unit Description kilowatt-hours per 

EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 

1 D i BT es gn B, T-f 5h * 4 l l d frame, 5 hp*, 4 poles, enclosed 8 977 , 8 287 , 8 138 , 

2 Design B, T-frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 61,611 60,164 58,778 3 Design B, T-frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 195,566 194,167 190,458 

4 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 l 6 Fire pump electric motor , 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 9.24 9.08 9.00 

7 Fire pump electric motor, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 53.47 52.22 52.17 

Fire pump electric motor 75 hp 4 poles 8 Fire pump electric motor, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 130.24 127.77 127.75 

9 Brake motor, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 8,079 7,430 7,290 

10 Brake motor, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 48,394 47,178 45,999 

65

p p
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utility, and Employment impact8 Results and Proposed Standards 

66
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

67
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Purpose

• Assess the LCC impacts and PBP for the consumers of e

mot d th id d ffi i tors un

der the considere

d effi

ciency l l eve s.

Method

• LCC equals total installed costs plus the sum of annual op

costs discounted to a particular base year.

• Anal

ysis models the uncertaint

y yp 

 and variabilit

y of in

puts u

Monte Carlo approach and probability distributions.

• Analysis is implemented in MS Excel® spreadsheet comb

Cr

ystal Ball®.

68
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Baseline

Manufacturer Cost

EngineeringAnalysis Std‐Level

Manufacturer Cost

Manufacturer

Markup

M k Distributor

&

Consumer

Price

Total

Installed Cost

MarkupsAnalysis

Distributor

&

Contractor

Markups

Sales Tax

Installation

Cost Pay

Pe

Energy Use

Analysis

Energy

Consumption

Energy

Prices

Annual

Energy Cost

Repair

Cost

Annual

Operating Expense

Lifetime

Lifetime 

Ex

Maintenance

Cost

Discount

Rate

Energy Price Trend

69

Trend
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Electric motor mechanical lifetimes (hours) by horsepow

and sector

Horsepower 

Range

Industrial 

Sector

Agricultural 

Sector

Commercia

Sector

1 – 5 43,800 28,578 37,060

6 – 20 43,800 27,966 44,248

21

– 50 87 600 , 26 555 , 63 596 ,

51 – 100 87,600 25,870 88,675

101 – 200 131,400 24,659 85,548

• DOE considered a negative correlation between motor life

201 – 500 131,400 27,597 73,018

70

years) and operating hours.
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Electric motor weighted average lifetime across applicat

(example)

Horsepower 

Ran

g

e

Equipment 

Class Grou

p

Weighted Average Lifetime Ac

Applications

g Yr

Industrial Commercial Agric

1-5

Group 1 

NEMA

8 17 

6-20 8 19 

21 50 NEMA Design A 

and B 

Motors

21

-50 15 22 

51-100 14 29 

101-200 21 28 

201

-500 21 29 

71
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Average Repair Frequency: Industrial and commercial se• Motors 1 – 20 horsepower: not repaired;• Motors 21 

– 100 horsepower: half lifetime;

• Motors 101 – 500 horsepower: third lifetime; and• For fire 

pp p um

p electric motors, assumed there is no re

pair 

the low operating hours.

Average Repair Frequency: Average Repair Frequency: Agriculture Agriculture• On average: half lifetime.

72
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Example of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA Design B, T fraFour Poles, Enclosed Motor

Energy 

Effi i Efficienc

y

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Sav

Effi

ciency Average 

Level

y

% 

Average 

Installed 

Price

$

Average 

Energy 

Use 

kWh/yr

Average

Annual 

Operating 

Cost

$

Average 

Life-Cycle 

Cost

$

Average 

Savings

$

Customer

Net Cost

%

N

0 82.5 603 8,977 772 6,127 N/A 0.0 1 87.5 623 8,287 714 5,731 44 0.0 

2 89.5 674 8,138 701 5,691 61 10.2 

3 90.2 729 8,062 694 5,692 56 35.5 

4 91.0 1,152 7,969 687 6,065 -283 85.4 

73
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Example of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA Design B, T fraFour Poles, Enclosed Motor

Energy Efficienc

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Saving

Average Energy Efficiency 

Level

Efficienc

y

%

Average 

Installed 

Price

$

Average 

Energy 

Use 

kWh/yr

Average

Annual 

Operating 

Cost

$

Average 

Life-Cycle 

Cost

$

Average 

Savings

$

Customers w

Net Cost

%

N

Be

0 93.0 3,576 195,566 15,283 131,207 N/A 0.0 0

1 94.1 3,860 194,167 15,194 130,778 48 2.9 5

2 95 4. 4 344 , 190 458 190,458 14 929 , 129 034 129,034 626 2 7. 33 95.8 5,082 190,392 14,944 129,898 -21 49.2 24 96.2 6,461 188,997 14,855 130,524 -594 70.3 2

74
Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Ana

Issue 5: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcedeterminin

g qy p p g the fre

quenc

y of motor re

pair de

pendin

g on 

equipment class group and sector.

Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on an

y additional source

data on motor lifetime that could be used to validate DOestimates of motor mechanical lifetime and its method oestimating lifetimes. 

Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on the estimated base cadistribution of product efficiencies and on any additional sources of data.

75
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utility, and Employment impacts8 Results and Proposed Standards 

76
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

77
Shipments Analysis

Purpose

• To estimate electric motor shipments in the base case and 

standards cases.

Method

• The shipments model relies on two main sources: The shipments model relies on two main sources:

ԟ Current and historical shipments data (Market researc

inputs from interested parties, U.S. Census, NEMA);

ԟ Fixed investment data (Bureau of Economic Analysis)ԟ Gross Domestic Product projections (AEO 2013).

• Shipment projections driven by economic Shipment projections driven by economic growth and fixe

growth and fixe

investments in equipment including motors. 

78
Shipments Analysis

Annual Shipments 

Horsepower

Range 

2011 Shipments

thousand units

1 – 5 3,491 

6 – 20 1,408 

21 – 50 356 

51 – 100 117

101 – 200 39 201 – 500 20 

Ttl o a 5,431

79
Shipments Analysis

Shipments Projection 

Equipment Class 

Grouping

Annual Shipments 

thousand units

C 

2016** 2025 2035 2045** C

o

NEMA Designs A & B 5,897 8,197 11,206 15,473 

NEMA Design C 11 16 21 NEMA Design C 11 29 Fire Pump 2 2 3 4 

Brake 344 478 654 902 

6 254 8 693 11 883 16 409

*Total may not sum up because of rounding.

Total* 6,254 8,693 11,883 16,409 

80

** The shipments analysis uses January 1st, 2016 to represent the compliance date of D

2015. 
Shipments Analysis

Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcedata that could be used to establish the distribution of elmotors across equipment class groups. 

Issue 4: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcedata that could be used to establish the distribution of emotors across sectors by horsepower range and within equipment class group.

81
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

82
National Impact Analysis

Purpose

• For equipment shipped from 2015 to 2044:

– To estimate the National Energy Savings (NES) from 

amended energy conservation standards at different elevels.

– To estimate the national economic impact To estimate the national economic impact for electric for electric 

(or the Net Present Value (NPV)) from energy conservstandards at different efficiency levels.

M th d e

o

d

• DOE calculates national energy savings by multiplying un

energy savings by projected shipments and accumulating 

proj t d l th 30 jec

t

e

d value over the 30 years.

• DOE calculates the NPV by accumulating the difference e

between energy bill savings and increased equipment exp

for all motors shipped o er the 30 ear period

83

for all motors shipped

o

ver the 30 year period.
National Impact Analysis

Base-Case Efficiency Projection• Depicts the current and projected mix of electric motor efficienci

the absence of new regulation.

– DOE used the number of models meeting the requirements 

efficiency level from six major manufacturers and one distribcatalog data to develop the base-case efficiency distribution for each equipment class group and horsepower range for each equipment class group and horsepower range.

– Beyond 2012, DOE assumed the efficiency distributions for 

class groups 1 and 4 vary over time based on historical data market 

penetration of NEMA Premium motors within the ma

integral alternating current induction motors*. 

– For equipment class groups 2 and 3, DOE kept the base cas

efficiency distributions in the compliance year equal to 2012 did not assume any trend beyond 2012.

* Boteler, R., USA Motor Update 2009, in Energy Efficient Motor Driven Systems Conference 2009

84

. 
National Impact Analysis

Base-Case Efficiency Projection for ECG 1 (example)

1‐5 hp

80%90%

100%

50%60%70%30%40%50%

0%

10%20%

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

85

201

201

201

201

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

203

203

203

203

203

203

203

203

203

203

204

204

204

204

204
National Impact Analysis

Standards-Case Efficiency Projection• Depicts the projected mix of electric motor efficiencies sol

different efficienc

y standards cases.

– In the compliance year: Equipment with efficiency belo

standard levels “roll up” to the standard level.

– Beyond the compliance year for Beyond the compliance year for equipment class grou

equipment class grou

4, DOE assumed that the level immediately above the would show a similar increase in market penetration a

NEMA Premium motors in the base case NEMA Premium motors in the base case.

– For equipment class groups 2 and 3, DOE kept the sta

case efficiency distributions constant and equal to the 

compliance year.

86
National Impact Analysis

T i l St d d L l

TSL Equipment Class group Formulation Criteria

T

rial Stan

dar

d

Levels

1234

1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 0 EL 1

Each equipment class moves up to one the current baseline, with the exception motors, which remain at their baseline le

2 EL 2 EL 1 EL 0 EL2

NEMA Premium levels for all equipment with the exception for fire-pump motors, the baseline

3 EL 3 EL 2 EL 1 EL 3

One NEMA band above NEMA premium equipment class groups except fire-pum

move up to NEMA premium move up to NEMA premium

4 EL 4 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 Maximum technologically feasible level 

equipment class groups. 

87
National Impact Analysis

Full Fuel Cycle Cumulative National Energy Savi

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Group 1 0 83 6 38 10 02 

(NEMA Design A and B)

0.83

6.38 10.02 

Group 2(NEMA Design C) 0.02 0.02 0.03 Group 3 0 00 0 00 0 00 Group

3

(Fire Pump Electric Motors)

0.00

0.00

0.00

Group 4 (Brake Motors) 0.26 0.59 0.73 Total All Classes 1.11 6.98 10.78 

88
National Impact Analysis

N t P t V l f C B fit Di N

e

t

Presen

t

Value o

f

Consumer 

Benefit, Discoun

(billion 2012$)

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Group 1 Group

1

(NEMA Design A and B) 4.5 20.7 1.5 Group 2(NEMA Design C) 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Group 3(Fire Pump Electric Motors) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group 4 (Brake Motors) 1.3 2.5 1.5 (Brake Motors)Total All Classes 5.8 23.3 3.0 

89
National Impact Analysis

N t P t V l f C B fit Di N

e

t

Presen

t

Value o

f

Consumer 

Benefit, Discoun

(billion 2012$)

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Group 1 Group

1

(NEMA Design A and B) 2.2 7.7 -3.7 Group 2(NEMA Design C) 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Group 3(Fire Pump Electric Motors) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group 4 (Brake Motors) 0.5 1.0 0.3 (Brake Motors)Total All Classes 2.7 8.7 -3.4 

90
National Impact Analysis

Issue 8: DOE seeks comments on its decision to use effi i t d f i t l 1 d 4 d ffi

ciency 

tren

ds 

for equipmen

t class groups 

1 an

d

4 an

d

constant efficiencies for equipment class groups 2 and 3 the analysis period. Specifically, DOE would like comme

additional sources of data on trends in efficiency improvadditional sources of data on trends in efficiency improv

Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on any sources of data thcould be used to establish the elasticity of electric motor could be used to establish the elasticity of electric motor

shipments with respect to changes in purchase price.

91
National Impact Analysis

Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on its scaled values for In particular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology scaling MSP data from the representative equipment clato the remaining equipment classes.Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on the scaled values for weights. In particular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology for scaling weight data from the representaequipment classes to the remaining equipment classes.Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on the trial standard lev(TSLs) developed for the NOPR.Issue 25: Currently, DOE’s reference case projects that for future shipments of motors will remain constant. DOE 

ki i t th i t f thi ti

92

seeking inpu

t on the appropria

teness o

f this assumption
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

93
Regulatory Impact Analysis

Purpose

• Evaluate non-regulatory alternatives to proposed standard

Method

• DOE uses modified NIA spreadsheets to evaluate the non

re

g y ulator

y alternatives:

ԟ Consumer rebates;ԟ Consumer tax credits;ԟ Manufacturer tax credits; Manufacturer tax credits;ԟ Voluntary energy efficiency targets;ԟ Early replacement; andԟ Bulk government purchase.

94
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

95
Manufacturer Impact Analysis Overview

Purpose

• To assess the impacts of standards on manufacturers• To identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer sub identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer sub

that may be more severely affected than the industry whole; 

• To examine the examine the impacts of standards on direct employ

impacts of standards on direct employ

and manufacturing capacity; and

• To examine the cumulative regulatory impact on the in

Methodology

• Analyze industry cash flow and industry net present va

(INPV) through use of the Government Regulatory ImpModel (GRIM); and

• Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, d

96

sub-group analysis, and address qualitative issues.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis Methodolo

• Phase 1

ԟ DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the marke

identify important issues that require further investigation

• Ph 2 ase 

2

ԟ DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and an interv

questionnaire to guide subsequent discussions with man

• Phase

3

ԟ DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts 

standards both quantitatively (using the Government RegImpact Model) and qualitatively (impacts on competition, Impact Model) and qualitatively (impacts on competition,

manufacturing capacity, employment, and regulatory burd

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Industry profile

Develop straw-man GRIM*

Develop interview guide

Interviews& industrywide / subgroup

Assess direct employment, competition, cumulative 

97

g subgroup

analysis burden

s
Manufacturer Impact Analysis Key Issue

• Efficiency Levels above NEMA Premium

ԟ Efficiency levels beyond NEMA Premium would req

significant level of investment from motor manufact

ԟ There are potential safety concerns with using copp

due to the higher melting point of copper.

ԟ The 

p pp rice of copper is volatile.

• Increase in Equipment Repairs

ԟ Customers would be more likely to rewind old, less 

motors as opposed to motors, as opposed to purchase purchase newer more efficie

newer more efficie

compliant motors if standards are increased.

• Enforcement

ԟ Manufacturers believe there is a Manufacturers believe there is

a lack of enforceme

lack of enforceme

current motor standards and are concerned about nstandards if those will not be strictly enforced.

98
Manufacturer Impact Analysis Scenarios 

Analyzed

• DOE Modeled Three Different Markup Scenarios

ԟ Flat Markup, Preservation of Operating Profit Marku

Two-Tiered Markup

• Least Severe for Manufacturers – Flat Markup Scenario

ԟ In the flat markup scenario manufacturers fully pas

additional costs to their costumers and maintain the

margin in the standards case.

• Most Severe for Manufacturers – Preservation of Operatin

Markup or Two-Tiered Markup Scenario

ԟ In the preservation of operating profit markup scena

manufacturers maintain the same level of operating absolute dollars in the standards case as in the bas

despite a higher level of investment.

ԟ In the two-tiered markup scenario higher standards 

lower manufacturer markups for products above NE

99

Premium.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis INPV Resul

Severe)

• Flat Markup Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Lev

123

INPV (2012$ millions) 3,371.2 3,378.7 3,759.2 4,443.7 Change in INPV

(2012$ millions) - 7.5 388.0 1,072.5 

(%) - 0.2 11.5 31.8 

Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.1 57.4 611.7 

Capital Con ersion Costs Capital Con

version Costs (2012$ millions) (2012$ millions) - 0 0. 26 4. 220 5. 

Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.2 83.7 832.3 

100
Manufacturer Impact Analysis INPV Resul

Severe)

• Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenar

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1234

INPV (2012$ millions) 3,371.2 3,019.5 3,089.7 2,356.8 1,38Change in INPV (2012$ millions) - (351.7) (281.5) (1,014.4) (1,98

(%) - (10.4) (8.4) (30.1) (59

Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.1 57.4 611.7 62

• Two Tiered Markup Scenario

Capital Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 0.0 26.4 220.5 69Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.2 83.7 832.3 1,32

-Tiered Markup Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1234

INPV (2012$ millions) 3,371.2 3,374.3 3,087.6 2,979.6 3,33

Change in INPV (2012$ millions) - 3.2 (283.5) (391.6) (35

(%) - 0.1 (8.4) (11.6) (1

Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.1 57.4 611.7 62Ca

pital Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 0.0 26.4 220.5 69

101

p ( )

Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions) - 6.2 83.7 832.3 1,32
Manufacturer Impact Analysis Small Bus

Impacts

• DOE identified 13 electric motor small business 

manufacturers.

ԟ Five small Five small businesses manufacture specialty motors 

businesses manufacture specialty motors 

currently subject to motor standards, but would be cunder the proposed expanded scope. DOE believes could be si

g y p y pp nificantl

y im

pacted b

y the 

pro

posed sta

ԟ Five small businesses only manufacture a small am

covered motors and primarily focus on other types onot covered b

y this rulemakin

g. DOE does not belie

proposed standards would significantly impact these businesses, since less than 10 percent of their revefrom motors covered by this rulemaking.

ԟ Three small businesses primarily manufacture moto

already meet the proposed efficiency levels. DOE dbelieve the proposed standards would significantly i

102

these businesses.
Request for Comment

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the potential impacof new and amended standards on small electric motor of new and amended standards on small electric motor

manufacturers, especially regarding DOE’s proposed expansion of scope of covered electric motors.

103
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utility, and Employment impacts8 Results and Proposed Standards 

104
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

105
Emissions Impact Analysis

Purpose

• To report emission impacts resulting from amended energ

conservation standards, including changes in power plan

emi i d f ll f l l i i issions an

d

f

ull

fuel cycle emissions.

Method

• DOE used the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS

derive emissions factors (physical units per unit of energy for carbon dioxide (CO

2) and several other gases. 

Results

• Energy savings from the proposed standards reduce cum

emissions by:

• 396.1 million metric tons (Mt) of CO

2 ( ) ,

• 499.4 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

X), 

• 674.4 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO

2). 

106
Monetization of Emission Reductions Be

Purpose

• To estimate the potential monetary benefit of reduced pow

emissions resulting from the considered standard levels.

Method

• DOE used the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) 

developed through interagency process.

ԟ SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the inc

damage resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissincluding but not limited to agricultural productivity los

health effects, property damage from rising sea level, changes in the ecosystem.

• The most recent interagency estimates of the potential gl

benefits resulting from reduced CO

2 emissions in 2015 ar

$39.7, $61.2, and $117.0 per metric ton in 2012 dollars. 

• For emission reductions that occur in later years, these va

107

grow in real terms over time.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Be

Results (Full Fuel Cycle Emissions), million 2

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

CO

2

* 457 to 

6,378

2,502 to 

36,564

3,831 to 

56,143

NO

X – 3% discount 

rate

117 635 972 

NO 7% discount

X

– 7% discount

rate

60 285 432 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the glo

reduced CO2 emissions.

108
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

109
Utility Impact Analysis

Purpose

• To assess the changes in electric installed capacity and g

would result from standards. 

Methodology

• DOE modeled the energy savings impacts from the cons

standard levels usin

g NEMS-BT to 

generate forecasts th

from the AEO reference case.

Results

•

Changes in electric installed capacity and power in electric installed capacity and power generat

generat

proposed standard level:

Installed 

Capacity 

R d ti (MW)

Electricity Generation 

Reduction (GWh)

R

e

duction (MW) Reduction (GWh)

2020 422 7,1922025 1,212 14,2212030 2,546 20,0472035

4,469 24,480

110

2040 5,685 28,181
NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule

Life-CycleCost and

Market & Technology

Screening

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

Cost andPayback Period Analysis

Screening Analysis

Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis

111
Employment Impact Analysis

Purpose

• To assess the overall impact on indirect national employmen

standards that result standards that result from shifting consumer expenditures am

from shifting consumer expenditures am

and services and changing equipment and energy costs.

M th d l M

eth

o

d

ology

• DOE used the Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImS

for the evaluation of indirect employment impacts. (ImSET 

o

f IMBUILD)

Results

• DOE anticipates that net labor market impacts will be negli

time due to the small magnitude of the short-term effects.

112
Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Overview2 Market and Technology Assessment3 Engineering Analysis4 Markups, Energy Use Analysis5 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis

7 Environmental, Utility, and Employment impacts8 Results and Proposed Standards 

113
Results and Proposed Standards

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings (quads)

NIA and MIA results

National Full Fuel Cycle Energy Savings (quads)

1.1 7.0 10.8 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2012$ billion )

3% discount rate 3% discount rate

6 23

3 

7% discount rate 3

9 -3 

Manufacturer Impacts Manufacturer ImpactsIndustry NPV (2012$ million) 7.5 - (351.7) 388.0 - (283.5) 1,072.5 - (1,014.4) 1Industry NPV (% 

h ) 0.2 - (10.4) 11.5 - (8.4) 31.8 - (30.1) 

c

hange) ( ) ( ) ( ) 

114
Results and Proposed Standards

Emissions Impacts

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)

Emissions Impacts

( )

CO2 million metric tons 66 396 610. 

SO2 thousand tons 106 674 1,042 

NO

X thousand tons 82 499 770 

Hg tons 0.1 0.8 1.3 

N2O thousand tons 1.3 8.5 13 

CH4 thousand tons 302 1,888 2,913 

Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)

CO2 2012$ million million* 457 to 6 378 457 to

6,378 2 502 to 36 564 2,502 to 36,564 3 831 to 56 143 3,831 to 56,143 4 

4

NO

X – 3% discount 

rate 2012$ million 117 635 972.2 NO

X – 7% discount 

rate 2012

$ million 60.2 285.0 432.0 

115

$

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
Results and Proposed Standards

LCC and PBP results

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2012$)*

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

E i t Cl G 1 43 132 68 

LCC and PBP results

Equipment Class 

Group 1 43 132 68 

Equipment Class Group 2 38 38 -285 Equipment Class Group 3 N/A** N/A** -61 

E

qp p ui

pment Class Grou

p 4 137 259 210 

Weighted Average 48 139 75 

Consumer Median PBP (years)*

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Equipment Class Group 1 1.1 3.3 6.7 

Equipment Class Group 2 5.0 5.0 22.8 Equipment Class Group 3 N/A** N/A** 3,299 

Equipment Class Group 4 1.2 1.9 3.7 

Weighted Average 1.1 3.2 6.6 

* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results 

representative units in the group

116

representative units in the group. **For equipment class group 3, the proposed standard level is the same as the baseline; thus, no 

are affected.
Results and Proposed Standards

Consumer Impacts

LCC Impacts Distribution* TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 Equipment Class Group 1Net Cost % 0.3 8.4 38.0 

Consumer Impacts

Net Benefit % 9.7 32.0 40.4 

No Impact % 90.0 59.6 21.5 

Equipment Class Group 2Net Cost % 21.5 21.5 94.7 

Net Benefit % 68.6 68.6 5.3 

No Impact % 9.9 9.9 0.0 Equipment Class Group 3Net Cost % 0.0 0.0 81.7 

Net Benefit Net Benefit

% 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 

No Impact % 0.0 0.0 18.3 

Equipment Class Group 4Net Cost % 1.0 10.8 33.1 

Net Benefit % 31.8 60.8 65.8 

No Impact % 67.3 28.4 1.1 

Weighted AverageNet Cost % 0.4 8.6 37.8 

Net Benefit % 11.0 33.7 41.8 

NI t

% 88 6 57 8 20 4 

117

No Impact % 88.6 57.8 20.4

* The results for each equipment class group (ECG) are a shipment weighted average of results for representative units in the group. 
Results and Proposed Standards

P i E ti t * Low Net Benefits 

Annualized Benefits and Costs Discount Rate

Primary 

E

stimate* Low Net Benefits Estimate* 

million 2012$/yea

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 1,114 924 

Operating Cost Savings 3% 1,730 1,421 

CO2 at $11.8/t case 5% 155 134 

CO2 at $39.7/t case 3% 586 506 CO2 at $61.2/t case 2.5% 882 762 CO2 at 

$117/t case 3% 1,811 1,565 

NO

X at $2,639/ton

7% 21.46 18.55 3% 31.48 27.20 

7% plus CO2 range 1,290 to 2,947 1,077 to 2,507 

Total Benefits†

7% 1,721 1,449 

3% plus CO2 range 1,916 to 3,572 1,583 to 3,014 

3% 2,347 1,955 

Costs

Incremental Equipment Costs

7% 462 492 3% 577 601 

Net Benefits

7% 

plus CO2 ran

g

e 585 to 2,016 1,115 to 3,033 

118

Total*

p 2 g

7% 957 1,614 

3% plus CO2 range 982 to 2,413 1,781 to 3,700 

3% 1,354 2,280 

*Total at 7% and 3% used CO2 value at $39.7/t case
How to Submit Written Comments

In all correspondence, please refer to the electric motors rulem

– Standards for Electric Motors;– Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027; and– Regulation Identification Regulation Identification Number (RIN) Number (RIN) 1904

-AC28.

Email: ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.gov

Postal: CourierMs. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards . Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Building Technologies ProgMailstop EE-5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW1000 I d d A SW 1000 In

depen

dence 

Avenue, SW W hi t DC 20024 Washing

ton, DC 20024

Washington, DC 20585-0121 Tel: 202 586-2945

Comment Period closes: February 4 2014 11:59 PM ET

119

Comment Period closes: February

4, 2014, 11:59 PM ET
Backup Slides

120
Exclusions Defined

• Air-over Electric Motor

• An electric motor rated to operate in and be cooled by the air

a fan or blower that is not supplied with the motor and whose purpose is providing airflow to an application other than the mdriving it.

• Component Set of Electric Motor

• A combination of motor parts that require the addition of mor

endshields (and their associated bearings) to create an opermot Th t i t f bi ti f t t 

tor. These parts may consist of any combination of a stato

wound stator, rotor, shaft, or endshields. For the purpose of tdefinition, the term “operable motor” means an electric motor 

engineered for performing in accordance with nameplate ratiengineered for performing in accordance with nameplate rati

121
Exclusions Defined (continued)

• Liquid-cooled Electric Motors

• A motor that is cooled by liquid circulated using a designated 

apparatus such that the liquid or iquid-filled conductors come contact with the parts of the moto

r.

• Submersible Electric Submersible Electric Motor

• An electric motor that (1) is intended to operate continuously 

submerged in liquid, (2) is capable of operation while submeli

quid for an indefinite 

p , () eriod of time, and (3) has been sealed 

prevent ingress of liquid from contacting the motor’s internal 

• Inverter

-only Electric Motor only Electric Motor

• An electric motor that is capable of rated operation solely wit

inverter, and is not intended for operation when directly connpolyphase, sinusoidal line 

power.

122

p yp , p
Design B, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclose

123
Design B, 30-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclos

124
Design B, 75-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclos

125
Design C, 5-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclose

126
Design C, 50-Horsepower, 4-Pole, Enclos

127