After a regulatory action has been completed, Executive Order 12866 requires agencies 

to identify the substantive changes between the draft submitted to Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review and the action subsequently announced, and to 

identify those changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA.
[6450-01-P]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031]

RIN: 1904-AC54

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Pumps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended,

sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part C of Title 

III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the 

U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. §§ 6311–6317, as codified), establishes the "Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial Equipment." The covered equipment includes pumps. In 

this notice, DOE proposes to establish new energy conservation standards for pumps and 

announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and 

associated analyses and results.

1
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on [Day of week, Month, Day, Year], from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See 

section VII Public Participation for webinar registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER PUBLICATION]. See section VII Public Participation for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room [NUMBER], 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 

DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. Please note 

that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security 

screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should 

advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal 

Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing 

laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. 

For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of this notice. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing 

2
to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from 

the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the 

alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.

DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the 

following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, American 

Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, 

and Washington.

Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; 

an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, 

New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked 

Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government 

issued Photo-ID card.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation 

Standards for pumps, and provide docket number EE-2011–BT–STD–0031 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC54. Comments may be submitted 

using any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: Pumps2011STD0031@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number and/or 

RIN in the subject line of the message.

3
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 

20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to 

include printed copies.

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit 

all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted 

to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above 

and by e-mail to Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on 

the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).

Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 

regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 

containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 

available.

4
A link to the docket web page can be found at: 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031. This web page will 

contain a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The 

regulations.gov web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII for further 

information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. E-mail: 

John.Cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov.

Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 

586-9507. E-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

5
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

III. General Discussion

A. Rulemaking Approach

1. Harmonization

2. Regulatory Regimes

B. Definition of Covered Equipment

C. Scope of the Energy Conservation Standards in this Rulemaking

D. Test Procedure and Metric

1. PER Rating of a Minimally Compliant Pump

E. Compliance Date

F. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

G. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

H. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Equipment Classes

2. Scope of Analysis and Data Availability

a. Radially Split Multi-Stage Vertical (RS-V)

b. Vertical Turbine Submersible (VT-S).1800

3. Technology Assessment

a. General Discussion of Technology Options

b. Additional Technology Options

c. Applicability of Technology Options to Reduced Diameter Impellers

6
d. Elimination of Technology Options Due to Low Energy Savings Potential.

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis

a. Representative Configuration Selection

b. Baseline Configuration

2. Design Options

3. Available Energy Efficiency Improvements

4. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

a. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

5. Manufacturers Production Cost Assessment Methodology

a. Changes in MPC Associated with Hydraulic Redesign

b. Manufacturer Production Cost (MPC) Model

6. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

7. Manufacturer Markup Analysis

a. Industry-average markups

b. Individual manufacturer markup structures

c. Industry-wide markup structure

8. MSP-Efficiency Relationship

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Duty Point

2. Pump Sizing

3. Operating Hours

4. Load Profiles

5. Equipment Losses

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Approach

2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs

a. Equipment Prices

b. Installation Costs

c. Annual Energy Use

d. Electricity Prices

e. Maintenance Costs

f. Repair Costs

g. Equipment Lifetime

h. Discount Rates

3. Payback Period

4. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Approach

a. National Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value

7
2. Base-Case and Standards-Case Distribution of Efficiencies

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. GRIM Analysis

a. GRIM Key Inputs

b. GRIM Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Alignment with European Union Energy Efficiency Standards

b. Pattern Production and Engineering Constraints

c. Conversion Requirements

d. Exclusion of Specific Pump Types

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation Process and Criteria

2. Trial Standard Level Equations

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Direct Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Proposed Standards

1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Commercial and 

Industrial Pumps

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed Standards

8
VI. Labeling and Certification Requirements

A. Labeling

B. Certification Requirements

1. Certification Report Requirements

2. Definition of Manufacturer

C. Enforcement Provisions

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VIII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The proposed standards for pumps (collectively, “pumps”) set forth in today’s 

rule reflect the consensus of a stakeholder negotiation. A working group was established 

under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 

in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act (NRA). (5 U.S.C. App. 2; 5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320.) The 

9
purpose of the working group was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on 

proposed standards for pump energy efficiency. On June 19, 2014, the working group 

successfully reached consensus on proposed energy conservation standards for specific 

rotodynamic, clean water pumps used in a variety of commercial, industrial, agricultural, 

and municipal applications. See section II.B for further discussion of the working group,

section II.C for the industry sectors covered, and section III.C for a description of the 

relevant pumps.

DOE’s proposed standards, which are consistent with the working group 

recommendations, are shown in Table I.1 and consist of pump energy index (PEI) values.

Under the proposed standards, a pump model would be compliant if its PEI rating is less 

than or equal to the proposed standard. PEI is defined as the pump efficiency rating 

(PER) for a given pump model (at full impeller diameter), divided by a calculated 

minimally compliant PER for the given pump model. PER is defined as a weighted 

average of the electric input power supplied to the pump over a specified load profile,

represented in units of horsepower (hp).

The minimally compliant PER is unique to each pump model and is a function of 

specific speed (a dimensionless index describing the geometry of the pump) and each 

pump model’s flow at best efficiency point (BEP) , as well as a specified C-value. A Cvalue is the translational component of a three-dimensional polynomial equation that

describes the attainable hydraulic efficiency of pumps as a function of flow at BEP, 

specific speed, and C-value. Thus, when a C-value is used to define an efficiency level, 

Comment [A1]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

Comment [A2]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

10
that efficiency level can be considered equally attainable across the full scope of flow and 

specific speed encompassed by this proposed rule.

A certain percentage of pumps currently on the market will not meet each 

efficiency level. That percentage can be referred to as the efficiency percentile. For 

example, if 10% of the pumps on the market do not meet a specified efficiency level, that 

efficiency level represents the lower 10th percentile of efficiency. The efficiency 

percentile is an effective descriptor of the impact of a selected efficiency level (selected 

C-value) on the current market.

The C-values proposed by DOE in Table I.1 correspond to the lower 25th 

percentile of efficiency for End Suction Close-Coupled (ESCC), End Suction Frame 

Mounted/Own Bearings (ESFM), In-line (IL), and Vertical Turbine Submersible (VT-S) 

equipment classes. The C-values for the Radial Split Multi-Stage Vertical In-Line 

Casing Diffuser (RS-V) equipment class were targeted to harmonize with the standards 

recently enacted in the European Union1, as models in the RS-V equipment class are 

known to be global platforms with no differentiation between products sold into the 

United States and European Union markets.2 Section III.D describes the PEI metric in 

further detail.

1 Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 

implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 

ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 

28-36. 2 Market research, limited confidential manufacturer data, and direct input from the CIP working group 

indicate that RS-V models sold in the United States market are global platforms with hydraulic designs 

equivalent to those in the European market.

Comment [A3]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

11

 
These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all equipment listed in 

Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date

four years after the publication of any final rule for this rulemaking.

Table I.1 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial 

Pumps

Equipment Class*

Proposed Standard 

Level **

PEI

Efficiency 

Percentile Proposed C-Values

ESCC.1800.CL 1.00 25% 128.47

ESCC.3600.CL 1.00 25% 130.42

ESCC.1800.VL 1.00 25% 128.47

ESCC.3600.VL 1.00 25% 130.42

ESFM.1800.CL 1.00 25% 128.85

ESFM.3600.CL 1.00 25% 130.99

ESFM.1800.VL 1.00 25% 128.85

ESFM.3600.VL 1.00 25% 130.99

IL.1800.CL 1.00 25% 129.30

IL.3600.CL 1.00 25% 133.84

IL.1800.VL 1.00 25% 129.30

IL.3600.VL 1.00 25% 133.84

RS-V.1800.CL 1.00 0%† 129.63

RS-V.3600.CL 1.00 0%† 133.20

RS-V.1800.VL 1.00 0%† 129.63

RS-V.3600.VL 1.00 0%† 133.20

VT-S.1800.CL 1.00 25% 134.13

VT-S.3600.CL 1.00 25% 134.13

VT-S.1800.VL 1.00 25% 134.13

VT-S.3600.VL 1.00 25% 134.13 * Equipment class designations consist of a combination (in sequential order separated by periods) of: (1) an 

equipment family (ESCC = end suction close-coupled, ESFM = end suction frame mounted, IL = inline, 

RS-V = radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line casing, diffuser, VT-S = vertical turbine submersible); 

(2) a nominal design speed (1800 = 1800 revolutions per minute (rpm), 3600 = 3600 rpm); and (3) an 

operating mode (CL = constant load, VL = variable load). For example, ‘‘ESCC.1800.CL’’ refers to the 

‘‘end suction close-coupled, 1,800 rpm, constant load’’ equipment class. See discussion in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR technical support document (TSD) for a more detailed explanation of the equipment class 

terminology.

** A pump model is compliant if its PEI rating is less than or equal to the proposed standard. † The standard level for RS-V was set at a level that harmonized with the current European Union energy 

conservation standard level. See discussion in section IV.A.2.a for more detail regarding matters related to

harmonization.

12
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of pumps, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) 

savings and the simple payback period (PBP).

3 The average LCC savings are positive for 

all equipment classes for which consumers would be impacted by the proposed 

standards4 and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of pumps, which is estimated to 

range between 11 and 23 years depending on equipment class, with an average of 15 

years (see section IV.F.2.g).

Table I.2 Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of 

Commercial and Industrial Pumps

Equipment Class Average LCC Savings 

(2013$)

Simple Payback Period 

(years)

ESCC.1800 $164 2.2

ESCC.3600 $92 1.0

ESFM.1800 $173 2.8

ESFM.3600 $547 0.8

IL.1800 $149 2.8

IL.3600 $139 1.9

RS-V.1800 N/A N/A

RS-V.3600 N/A N/A

VT-S.1800 N/A N/A

VT-S.3600 $7.2 4.2

Notes: DOE relied on available data for bare pumps with no information on configuration. Therefore, DOE 

conducted analysis at the level of equipment type and nominal design speed only. DOE is proposing 

identical standards for both CL and VL equipment classes.

Economic results are not presented for RS-V classes because the proposed standard is at the baseline.

For the VT-S.1800 class, which has a small market share, DOE [did not conduct a separate analysis for this 

class and is instead proposing to adopt the same levels as for the VT-S.3600 class.

3 The average LCC savings are measured relative to the base-case efficiency distribution, which depicts the 

market in the compliance year (see section IV.H.2). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare 

specific pump efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline model (see section IV.C.1.b). 4 DOE also calculates a distribution of LCC savings; the percentage of consumers that would have negative 

LCC savings (net cost) under the proposed standards is shown in section V.B.1.a.

Comment [A4]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

Comment [A5]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

13

 
B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to 

the industry from the base year of the manufacturer impacts analysis through the end of 

the analysis period (2015 to 2049). Using a real discount rate of 11.8 percent 5

, DOE 

estimates that INPV for manufacturers of pumps is $121.4 million in 2013$ for the base 

case. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that INPV will change by -32.5

percent to 6.9 percent. Industry conversion costs total $78.4 million. 

C. National Benefits6

DOE’s analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant 

amount of energy. The lifetime savings for pumps purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the first full year of compliance7 with new standards (2020–2049) amount to 

0.28 quadrillion Btu (quads).

8 This is a savings of one percent relative to the energy use 

of this equipment in the base case without new standards.

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of

the proposed standards for pumps ranges from $0.41 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) 

to $1.11 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total 

5 DOE estimated draft financial metrics, including the industry discount rate, based on data from Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. DOE presented the draft financial metrics to manufacturers in 

MIA interviews and adjusted those values based on feedback from industry. The complete set of financial 

metrics and more detail about the methodology can be found in section 12.4.3 of TSD chapter 12.

6 All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 2015. 7 In this case, the compliance date of any final standards is estimated to be very late 2019, so the analysis 

period begins in 2020.

8 A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units (Btu).

14

 
value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for 

equipment purchased in 2020–2049. 

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions of 16

million metric tons (Mt)9 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 77 thousand tons of methane (CH4), 

13 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 25 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

0.23 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.04 tons of mercury (Hg).

10 The 

cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 2.5 Mt, which is 

equivalent to the emissions associated with the annual electricity use of 0.36 million 

homes.

The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric 

ton of CO2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a 

recent Federal interagency process.11 The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in 

section IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE 

estimates the present monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction is between $0.11

billion and $1.6 billion. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NOX

9 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented in short 

tons.

10 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014) 

Reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013.

11 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; 

revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technicalupdate-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.

15

 
emissions reduction, is $13 million at a 7-percent discount rate and $30 million at a 3-

percent discount rate.12

Table 1.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result 

from the proposed standards for pumps.

12 DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO2 emissions.

16

 
Table I.3. Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Pumps*

Category

Present 

Value

Billion 2013$

Discount 

Rate

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

0.6 7%

1.4 3%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case)** 0.1 5%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case)** 0.5 3%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case)** 0.8 2.5%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case)** 1.6 3%

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton)**

0.01 7%

0.03 3%

Total Benefits†

1.1 7%

1.9 3%

Costs

Incremental Installed Costs 0.2 7%

0.3 3%

Total Net Benefits

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value† 0.9 7%

1.6 3%

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with pumps shipped in 2020−2049. These results 

include benefits to consumers accruing after 2049 from equipment purchased in 2020−2049. The results 

account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers from the standard, some of 

which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios 

of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 

5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC 

distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC

with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case).

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards, for equipment sold in 2020-

2049, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary 

values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from 

consumer operation of equipment that meets the new or amended standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment 

17
purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV),

and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including 

CO2 emission reductions.13

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 emission reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national 

operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of

market transactions, whereas the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. 

Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed with 

different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of pumps shipped in 2020–2049. The SCC values, 

on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in 

Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-

percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 

13 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 

2014, the year used for discounting the NPV of total customer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE 

calculated a present value associated with each year’s shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 

(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2015. The calculation uses

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions, for which 

DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the present value, DOE then 

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the 

same present value.

18

 
2015, the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $16.9 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $60 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $29 million in CO2 reductions, and $1.3 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $73 million per year. Using a 3-

percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series that has a value 

of $40.5/t in 2015, the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $17.5 million per 

year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $81 million per year in reduced 

operating costs, $29 million in CO2 reductions, and $1.7 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $94 million per year.

19
Table I.4. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards for Commercial and Industrial Pumps 

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

million 2013$/year

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 60 54 67

3% 81 72 93

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($12.0/t case)* 5% 8 8 9

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($40.5/t case)* 3% 29 27 31

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($62.4/t case)* 2.5% 42 39 46

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($119/t case)* 3% 89 83 97

NOX Reduction Monetized 

Value (at $2,684/ton)**

7% 1.3 1.3 1.4

3% 1.7 1.6 1.9

Total Benefits†

7% plus CO2

range

69 to 150 63 to 138 78 to 166

7% 90 82 100

3% plus CO2

range

91 to 172 81 to 156 104 to 192

3% 112 100 126

Costs

Consumer Incremental 

Equipment Costs

7% 16.9 18.6 17.2

3% 17.5 19.5 17.7

Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2

range

53 to 133 44 to 119 61 to 148

7% 73 63 83

3% plus CO2

range

74 to 155 62 to 136 86 to 174

3% 94 80 108

20
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with pumps shipped in 2020−2049. 

These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2049 from the products purchased in 

2020−2049. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due 

to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and 

High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2014 Reference case, Low 

Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate 

in the Primary Estimate, an increase rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a decline rate in the High 

Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.2.a.

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios 

of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 

5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC 

distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average 

SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus 

CO2 range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those 

values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE 

further notes that equipment achieving these standard levels is already commercially 

available for all equipment classes covered by today’s proposal. Based on the analyses 

described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed 

standards to the nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer

LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for 

manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers). 

DOE also considered higher and lower energy efficiency levels as trial standard 

levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the potential burdens of these energy efficiency levels would outweigh the

projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 

response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course 

21
of this rulemaking, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that 

are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) 

that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today’s 

proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the 

establishment of standards for pumps.

A. Authority

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 “EPCA”), Pub. L. 94-

163, codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq., sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), establishes the "Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment." The covered equipment includes pumps, the subject of today’s notice. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1)(A).)

14 There are currently no energy conservation standards for pumps. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be 

designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 

14 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

22

 
6316(a).) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a).) 

DOE’s energy conservation program for covered equipment consists essentially 

of four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to 

certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the 

energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6314.) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed 

DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment comply with 

the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d).) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. DOE has proposed a 

test procedure for pumps through a separate rulemaking. Any final test procedures would

appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431. 

When setting standards for the equipment addressed by today’s notice, EPCA 

prescribes specific statutory criteria for DOE to consider. See generally 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C), 6295(o), and 6316(a). As indicated previously, any new or amended 

standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 

Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 

23
conservation of energy. Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain 

equipment, including pumps, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, 

or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically 

feasible or economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o); 6316(a). In considering whether a 

proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the 

equipment subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to 

result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely 

to result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

24
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) and 6316(a).)

The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 

the unavailability in the United States of any covered product- or equipment-type (or 

class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and 

volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a).)

There is a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the 

Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment 

complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 

value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result 

of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a).)

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a 

type or class of covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must 

specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class 

of equipment for any group of covered equipment that have the same function or intended 

use if DOE determines that equipment within such group (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or 

25
(B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other equipment within 

such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a).) In determining whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as 

the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Any 

rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(a).) 

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or 

regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)-(c) and 6316(a).) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other 

provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).

B. Background

DOE does not currently have a test procedure or energy conservation standards

for pumps. In considering whether to establish standards for pumps, DOE issued a 

Request for Information (RFI) on June 13, 2011. (76 FR 34192.) DOE received several 

comments in response to the RFI. In December 2011, DOE received a letter from the 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and the Hydraulic Institute indicating 

that efficiency advocates (including ASAP, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance) and pump manufacturers (as represented by the Hydraulic Institute) had 

26
initiated discussions regarding potential energy conservation standards for pumps.

(EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031-0011.) In subsequent letters in March and April 2012, and 

in a meeting with DOE in May 2012, the stakeholders reported on a tentative path 

forward on energy conservation standards for water pumps, inclusive of the motor and 

controls, and certification and labeling. (EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031-0010 and -0012.)

On February 1, 2013, DOE published a notice in the Federal Register that 

announced the availability of the “Commercial and Industrial Pumps Energy 

Conservation Standard Framework Document,” solicited comment on the document, and 

invited all stakeholders to a public meeting to discuss the document. (78 FR 7304.) The 

Framework Document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE 

anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for pumps, addressed 

stakeholder comments related to the RFI, and identified and solicited comment on

various issues to be resolved in the rulemaking. (EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031-0013.)

DOE held the framework public meeting on February 20, 2013 and received 

many comments that helped identify and resolve issues pertaining to pumps relevant to 

this rulemaking. These comments are discussed in subsequent sections of this notice.

As noted previously, DOE established a working group to negotiate proposed

energy conservation standards for pumps. Specifically, on July 23, 2013, DOE issued a 

notice of intent to establish a commercial and industrial pumps working group (“CIP 

Working Group”). (78 FR 44036.) The working group was established under the 

Comment [A6]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

27
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act (NRA). (5 U.S.C. App. 2; 5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320.) The 

purpose of the working group was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on 

proposed standard levels for the energy efficiency of pumps. The working group was to 

consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed 

standards, and the group would consult as appropriate with a range of experts on 

technical issues. 

DOE received 19 nominations for membership. Ultimately, the working group 

consisted of 16 members, including 1 member from the ASRAC and 1 DOE 

representative. (See Table II.1) The working group met in-person during 7 sets of 

meetings held December 18–19, 2013 and January 30–31, March 4–5, March 26–27, 

April 29–30, May 28–29, and June 17–19, 2014. 

Comment [A7]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

28
Table II.1 ASRAC Pump Working Group Members and Affiliations

Member Affiliation

Lucas Adin U.S. Department of Energy

Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (ASRAC Member)

Robert Barbour TACO, Inc.

Charles Cappelino ITT Industrial Process

Greg Case Pump Design, Development and 

Diagnostics

Gary Fernstrom Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San 

Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern 

California Edison, and Southern California 

Gas Company

Mark Handzel Xylem Corporation

Albert Huber Patterson Pump Company

Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Doug Potts American Water

Charles Powers Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps

Howard Richardson Regal Beloit

Steve Rosenstock Edison Electric Institute

Louis Starr Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Greg Towsley Grundfos USA

Meg Waltner Natural Resources Defense Council

To facilitate the negotiations, DOE provided analytical support and supplied the 

group with a variety of analyses and presentations, all of which are available in the 

docket (www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039). These

analyses and presentations, developed with direct input from the working group 

members, include preliminary versions of many of the analyses discussed in today’s 

NOPR, including a market and technology assessment; screening analysis; engineering 

analysis; energy use analysis; markups analysis; life cycle cost and payback period 

analysis; shipments analysis; national impact analysis; and manufacturer impact analysis.

29
On June 19, 2014, the working group reached consensus on proposed energy 

conservation standards for specific types of pumps. The working group assembled their 

recommendations into a term sheet (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092) that was 

presented to, and approved by the ASRAC on July 7, 2014. DOE considered the 

approved term sheet, along with other comments received during the rulemaking process, 

in developing proposed energy conservation standards.

C. Relevant Industry Sectors 

The energy conservation standards proposed in this NOPR will primarily affect 

the pump and pumping equipment manufacturing industry. The North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) classifies this industry under code 333911. DOE 

identified 86 manufacturers of pumps covered under this proposed rule, with 56 of those 

being domestic manufacturers. The leading U.S. industry association for the pumps 

covered under this proposed rule is the Hydraulic Institute (HI).

III. General Discussion

In developing this NOPR, DOE reviewed the recommendations in the term sheet 

produced by the CIP Working Group, as well as the 13 comments it received in response 

to the February 2013 Framework Document. Commenters included: Engineered 

Software, Inc.; Richard Shaw; Grundfos Pumps Corporation; the Hydraulic Institute (HI); 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Gas 

Company, and Southern California Edison (the preceding four commenters hereafter 

referred to collectively as the CA IOUs); National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); 

Comment [A8]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

30
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); Colombia Engineering; 

Earthjustice; Edison Electric Institute (EEI); The Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE), Earthjustice, and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (the 

preceding five commenters hereafter referred to collectively as the Advocates); and the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (hereafter referred to as NEEA/NPCC). DOE addressed all relevant stakeholder 

comments and requests throughout this NOPR. DOE notes that comments addressed in 

this NOPR reflect the views of the stakeholders at the close of the framework comment 

period in May 2013. DOE recognizes that the working group’s ASRAC-approved term 

sheet may represent views that have progressed since the time of the framework 

comments. As such, when addressing comments, DOE has noted where stakeholder 

views have changed.

A. Rulemaking Approach

1. Harmonization 

In response to the Framework Document, HI and Grundfos recommended that 

DOE harmonize its efforts with the approach followed by the European Union (EU). (HI, 

No. 25 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 2.) HI noted that harmonizing with the EU 

provides a logical and consistent path forward for U.S. manufacturers who have 

international operations and who export equipment from the U.S. to markets worldwide.

Id. Grundfos also suggested that DOE should harmonize with the EU on specific issues, 

including: (1) nomenclature and definitions, (2) test procedures, and (3) use of the 

31
Minimum Efficiency Index (MEI), including the applicable equation and constants. 

Grundfos also suggested limiting this initial rulemaking to address 1 potential standards 

for clean water pumps (as opposed to expanding the scope to include other pump types). 

Id. DOE notes that throughout the course of negotiations, the CIP Working Group

members, including HI and Grundfos, made recommendations that in many cases did not 

completely harmonize with the EU approach. The level of harmonization reflected in this 

NOPR and the associated test procedure NOPR directly results from these working group 

recommendations. This is discussed with more specificity in the applicable sections of 

the preamble.

2. Regulatory Options

In the Framework Document, DOE considered the following options for 

regulation:

1. Defining and establishing standards for the pump exclusive of the motor (i.e., the bare 

pump), except possibly for submersible pumps. This option follows the current EU 

approach for clean water pumps.

2. Defining and establishing standards for the pump inclusive of the motor and controls, 

if the pump is sold with them. Using this approach, each pump equipment class would 

be sub-divided into two categories: (1) without variable-speed drive (VSD) (pump is 

Comment [A9]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

32
sold with or without a motor), and (2) with VSD (VSD included only if the pump is 

sold with a motor).15

3. Defining and establishing standards for the pump inclusive of the motor, if the pump is 

sold with a motor, and considering the VSD as a design option to improve the 

efficiency of pumps sold with motors. Each pump equipment class could be divided 

into two further categories: (1) without motor (or VSD), and (2) with motor (with or 

without VSD). (EERE-2011-BT-0031-0013)

DOE also discussed the metrics it was considering for each option, shown in 

Table III.1.

Table III.1 Tentative Metrics for Pump Regulatory Options as Proposed in 

Framework Document

Regulatory Option Equipment Class Set Metric

1 Bare Pumps N/A Pump efficiency at three points

2 Pumps 

inclusive of 

motor and VSD

Pumps Without VSD (with 

or without motor) 

Pump efficiency at three points 

Pumps With VSD Overall efficiency at three points 

3

Pumps 

inclusive of 

motor, with 

VSD as a 

design option 

for all pumps 

sold with 

motors

Pumps Without Motor Pump efficiency at three points

Pumps With Motor (with 

or without VSD)

Potentially based on motor/VSD 

input power at multiple load points*

*

DOE stated that it may also consider the use of pump efficiency as an additional labeling requirement.

15 For the purposes of this rulemaking, “VSD” will be used when discussing speed control of pumps in 

general. Variable frequency drive (VFD) will be used when specifically discussing continuous control of 

AC induction motors.

33

 
In response, commenters recommended various approaches for dealing with 

pumps inclusive of the motor and/or controls:

• The Advocates, NEEA/NPCC, and the CA IOUs recommended a modified

regulatory option 3, in which pumps sold with motors below a certain horsepower 

(hp) limit might be required to be sold with VSDs. (Advocates, No. 32 at pp. 5-6; 

NEEA/NPVCC, No. 33 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 26 at p. 3.) The CA IOUs did not 

see the value in having an equipment class just for pump+motor+VSD (as in 

regulatory option 2). (CA IOUs, No. 26 at p. 3.)

• HI and Grundfos both supported an approach where the pump would be regulated 

inclusive of the motor and controls, which would, in their view, be likely to

achieve significantly greater savings than an approach based only on the bare 

pump. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 1; HI, No. 25 at p. 2.) HI believes that a large 

majority of systems can benefit from VSDs. (HI, No. 25 at p. 28.) HI and 

Grundfos agreed that system feedback control is necessary in this approach. 

(Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 9; HI, No. 25 at p. 27.) Specifically, HI and Grundfos 

proposed a two-prong approach: that all pumps be required to meet the MEI 

(Minimum Efficiency Index, based on the metric of pump efficiency), while 

pumps sold with motors and VSDs would also have another electric input powerbased metric as a label or standard. (HI, No. 25 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 24 at p.10.) 

The HI and Grundfos (European) approaches are similar but not identical. 

34
• EEI stated that analyzing energy (and setting standards) on the basis of pumps 

including their motors is the preferred approach, although EEI was not opposed to 

establishing pump standards based on ‘pump only’ performance characteristics. 

EEI did not support establishing standards based on pump performance with a 

VSD controller, as pumps are used in a variety of applications and not all are a 

good fit with VSDs. EEI also noted that it was unaware of any other DOE 

rulemaking where an optional, external component has been proposed as part of 

the test procedure or standard. (EEI, No. 31 at p. 3.)

• AHRI noted that unless DOE develops coverage of all possible combinations of 

pumps inclusive of the motor and controls, a regulatory regime may inadvertently 

cover only 10 percent of the possible combinations that are in use. (AHRI, No. 28 

at pp.1-2.)

The CIP Working Group ultimately recommended an alternative regulatory 

option that considers pumps inclusive of motors and controls, but applies essentially the 

same metric to all pumps, regardless of how they are sold. (EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-

0092; Recommendations Nos. 1, 9, and 11.) DOE’s proposal is consistent with the 

recommendation of the working group. The details of the proposed regulatory structure 

are discussed in the remainder of this NOPR.

DOE recognizes that some pumps, particularly in the agricultural sector, may be 

sold and operated with non-electric drivers, such as engines, steam turbines, or 

35
generators. The CIP Working Group recommended that pumps sold with non-electric 

drivers be rated as a bare pump, excluding the energy performance of the non-electric 

driver. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #3 at p. 2) 

DOE believes that there is insufficient technical merit or potential for additional energy 

savings to justify the additional burden associated with rating and certifying pumps sold 

with non-electric drivers inclusive of those drivers. This is described in more detail in the 

test procedure NOPR.

B. Definition of Covered Equipment

Although pumps are listed as covered equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), the 

term “pump” is not defined in EPCA. In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed a 

definition for “pump” clarify what would constitute the covered equipment. The 

definition reflects the consensus reached by the CIP Working Group in its negotiations:

“Pump” means equipment designed to moves liquids (which may include entrained gases, 

free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a 

bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical 

equipment, driver and controls. In the test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed 

definitions for “bare pump,” “mechanical equipment,” “driver,” and “controls,” as 

recommended by the CIP Working Group. 

C. Scope of the Energy Conservation Standards in this Rulemaking

DOE is considering applying a bifurcated approach that would set out the scope 

of the types of pumps that would be subject to the test procedure and energy conservation 

Comment [A10]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

36
standards, along with potential energy conservation standards that would apply to these 

pumps. The pumps for which DOE is proposing to set energy conservation standards for 

in this rulemaking are consistent with the CIP Working Group’s recommendations as 

well as the proposals in the test procedure NOPR, and consist of the following categories:

• End suction close coupled,

• End suction frame mounted/own bearings,

• In-line,

• Radially split, multi-stage, vertical in-line, diffuser casing diffuser, and

• Vertical turbine submersible.

DOE proposed definitions for these pumps in the test procedure NOPR. 

For the equipment categories included in this rulemaking, DOE proposes to 

consider energy conservation standards only for clean water pumps. In the test procedure, 

DOE proposed to define “clean water pump” as a pump that is designed for use in 

pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.25 kilograms per 

cubic meter, and with a maximum dissolved solid content of 50 kilograms per cubic 

meter, provided that the total gas content of the water does not exceed the saturation 

volume, and disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from freezing at a 

minimum of -10 oC. 

In the test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed to define several kinds of pumps 

that are clean water pumps, as defined, but would not be subject to the proposed test 

37
procedure, in accordance with CIP Working Group recommendations. DOE proposes that 

these pumps would also not be subject to the proposed energy conservation standards:

a) fire pumps;

b) self-priming pumps;

c) prime-assist pumps;

d) sealless pumps;

e) pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50 -

- Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities; and

f) a pump meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in 

Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, 

Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended).

The test procedure NOPR included further definitions for “fire pump,” “selfpriming pump,” “prime-assist pump,” and “sealless pump.”

For pumps meeting the definition of a clean water pump, with certain exceptions 

as noted above, DOE proposes to set energy conservation standards only for pumps with 

the following characteristics, which are identical to those for which DOE proposed the 

test procedure apply and are in accordance with CIP Working Group recommendations:

• 1-200 hp (shaft power at BEP at full impeller diameter for the number of stages 

required for testing to the standard);

• 25 gallons/minute and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);

Comment [A11]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

Comment [A12]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

38
• 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter);

• Design temperature range from -10 to 120 degrees C;

• Pumps designed to operate with either: (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a 

non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds 

of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute and/or 1,440 and 

2,160 revolutions per minute16; and

• 6 inch or smaller bowl diameter (VT-S/HI VS0).

DOE also proposed in the test procedure that all pump models must be rated and 

certified in a full impeller configuration, as recommended by the CIP Working Group. 

(See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, Recommendation No. 7.)

17 DOE proposed a 

definition for full impeller in its test procedure NOPR.

D. Test Procedure and Metric

DOE is currently conducting a rulemaking to establish a uniform test procedure 

for determining the energy efficiency of pumps, as well as sampling plans for the 

purposes of demonstrating compliance with any energy conservation standards for this 

equipment that DOE adopts. In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to prescribe 

16 The CIP Working Group recommendation specified pumps designed for nominal 3600 or 1800 

revolutions per minute (rpm) driver speed. However, it was intended that this would include pumps driven 

by non-induction motors as well. DOE believes that its clarification accomplishes the same intent while 

excluding niche pumps sold with non-induction motors that may not be able to be tested according to the 

proposed test procedure. The test procedure NOPR contains additional details.

17 The CIP Working Group made this recommendation because a given pump may be distributed to a 

particular customer with its impeller trimmed, and impeller trim has a direct impact on a pump’s 

performance characteristics. For any pump sold with a trimmed impeller, it was recommended that the 

certification rating for that pump model with a full diameter impeller would apply. This approach would 

limit the overall burden when measuring the energy efficiency of a given pump. In addition, a rating at full 

impeller diameter will typically be the most consumptive rating for the pump. 

39

 
test methods for measuring the efficiency of pumps, inclusive of motors and/or controls, 

by measuring the produced hydraulic power and measuring or calculating the shaft power 

and/or electric input power to the motor or controls. Consistent with the 

recommendations of the CIP Working Group, DOE proposed that these methods be based 

on Hydraulic Institute (HI) Standard 40.6-2014, “Hydraulic Institute Standard for Method 

for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” hereinafter referred to as “HI 40.6-2014.”

(See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, Recommendation No. 10.) DOE proposed

additions to HI 40.6-2014 to account for the energy performance of motors and/or 

controls, which is not addressed in the scope of HI 40.6-2014.

The test procedure NOPR proposes that the energy conservation standards for 

pumps be expressed in terms of a constant load PEI (PEICL) for pumps sold without 

continuous or non-continuous controls (i.e., either bare pumps or pumps sold inclusive of 

motors but not continuous or non-continuous controls) or a variable load PEI (PEIVL) for 

pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls. The PEICL or PEIVL, as 

applicable, describes the weighted average performance of the rated pump, inclusive of 

any motor and/or controls, at specific load points, normalized with respect to the 

performance of a “minimally compliant pump” (as defined in section III.D.1) without 

controls. The metrics are defined as follows:

PPPPPPCCCC = �

PPPPPPCCCC

PPPPPPSSSSSS

�

PPPPPPVV = �

PPPPPPVV

PPPPPPSSSSSS

�

Eq. 1

40
Where:

• PERCL is the equally-weighted average electric input power to the pump measured 

(or calculated) at the driver input over a specified load profile, as tested in 

accordance with the DOE test procedure. This metric applies only to pumps in a 

fixed speed equipment class. For bare pumps, the test procedure would specify 

the default motor loss values to use in the calculations of driver input.

• PERVL is the equally-weighted average electric input power to the pump 

measured (or calculated) at the controller input over a specified load profile as 

tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure. This metric applies only to 

pumps in a variable speed equipment class.

• PERSTD is the PER rating of a minimally compliant pump (as defined in section 

III.D.1). It can be described as the allowable weighted average electric input 

power to the specific pump, as calculated in the test procedure. This metric 

applies to all equipment classes.

A value of PEI greater than 1.00 would indicate that the pump is less efficient 

than DOE’s energy conservation standard and does not comply, while a value less than 

1.00 would indicate that the pump is more efficient than the standard requires. 

1. PER Rating of a Minimally Compliant Pump

DOE is considering using a standardized, minimally compliant bare pump, 

inclusive of a minimally compliant motor, as a reference pump for each combination of 

41
flow at BEP and specific speed. The minimally compliant pump would be defined as a 

function of certain physical properties of the bare pump, such as flow at BEP and specific 

speed (Ns), as used in the EU MEI approach. In the MEI approach, a single polynomial 

equation defines a three-dimensional surface over which minimum efficiency varies 

across a range of both flow and Ns. The EU uses the same equation for all equipment 

classes, changing only one value – the C-value – to raise or lower the surface along a 

vertical axis to cut off a certain percentage of pumps, but without adjusting any variables 

that would change the shape of the efficiency surface. HI and Grundfos supported the 

EU MEI approach, which eliminates the least efficient pumps by type category. (HI, No. 

25 at p. 2; Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 14.) HI added that Ns versus flow rate is the most 

practical approach to use when predicting efficiency for a particular class of pump types. 

(HI, No. 25 at p.37.)

Grundfos recommended use of the EU equation as well as the same C-values used 

in the EU, which would result in exact harmonization. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 14.) 

However, HI recommended DOE use the EU equation but with an updated C-value. HI 

added that although a better data fit could be obtained by changing other coefficients,

such complexity is not warranted. (HI, No. 25 at pp.4-5, 32, 40.)

After reviewing stakeholder comments, as well as discussions of the CIP Working 

Group, DOE is proposing to base its PER rating using the EU’s equation, but modifying

the C-values as suggested by HI to better reflect the U.S. market. Specifically, DOE 

proposes to use the same equation used by the EU to develop its standard (i.e., to 

42
determine the shape of the efficiency surface), translated to 60 Hz electrical input power 

and English units18 as shown in equation 2, to determine the efficiency of a minimally 

compliant pump: 

ηηpppppppp,SSSSSS = −0.85 ∗ ln(QQ)2 − 0.38 ∗ ln(NNNN) ∗ ln(QQ) − 11.48 ∗ ln(NNNN)2 + 13.46 ∗

ln(QQ) + 179.80 ∗ ln(NNNN) − (CC − 555.6) Eq. 2

Where: 

Q = flow at BEP in gallons per minute at 60 Hz,

Ns = specific speed at 60 Hz, and

C = an intercept that is set for the surface based on the speed of rotation and 

equipment category of the pump model. 

The C-value is the translational component of the three-dimensional polynomial 

equation. Adjusting the C-value increases or decreases the pump efficiency of a 

minimally compliant pump.

The calculated efficiency of the minimally compliant pump is reflective of the 

pump efficiency at BEP. This value is adjusted to determine the minimally compliant 

pump efficiency at 75 percent and 110 percent of BEP flow using the scaling values 

implemented in the EU regulations for clean water pumps. Namely, the efficiency at 75

18 The equation to define the minimally compliant pump in the EU is of the same form, but employs 

different coefficients to reflect the fact that the flow will be reported in m3

/hr at 50 Hz and the specific 

speed will also be reported in metric units. Specific speed is a dimensionless quantity, but has a different 

magnitude when calculated using metric versus English units. 

43

 
percent of BEP flow is assumed to be 94.7 percent of that at 100 percent of BEP flow and 

the pump efficiency at 110 percent of BEP flow is assumed to be 98.5 percent of that at 

100 percent of BEP flow, as shown in equation 3:

PPPPPPSSSSSS = ωω75% � PPHHHHHHHHHH,75%

0.947 ∗ ηηpppppppp,SSSSSS

+ LL75%� + ωω100% �

PPHHHHHHHHHH,100%

ηηpppppppp,SSSSSS

+ LL100%�

+ωω110% � PPHHyyyyyyyy,110%

0.985∗ηηpppppppp,SSSSSS

+ LL110%� Eq. 3

Where: 

ωi = weighting at each rating point (equal weighting – 0.3333);

PHydro,i = the pump power output at rating point i of the tested pump;

ηpump,STD = the minimally compliant pump efficiency, as determined in accordance 

with equation 52;

Li = the motor losses at each load point i, as determined in accordance with the 

procedure specified in the DOE test procedure; and

i = 75%, 100%, and 110% of BEP flow, as determined in accordance with the 

DOE test procedure. 

Equation 3 also demonstrates how a ratio of the minimally compliant pump 

efficiency and the hydraulic output power for the rated pump is used to determine the 

input power to a minimally compliant pump at each load point. Note that the pump 

hydraulic output power for the minimally compliant pump is the same as that for the 

particular pump being evaluated. The calculated shaft input power for the minimally 

compliant pump at each load point would then be combined with a minimally compliant 

44
motor for that default motor construction and horsepower and the default part-load loss 

curve, described in the proposed DOE test procedure, to determine the input power to the 

motor at each load point. Under this proposal, the applicable minimum motor efficiency 

is determined as a function of construction (i.e., open or enclosed), number of poles, and 

horsepower as specified by DOE’s existing energy conservation standards for electric 

motors at 10 CFR 431.25. PERSTD is then determined as the weighted average input 

power to the motor at each load point, as shown in equation 3.

DOE selected several C-values to establish the efficiency levels analyzed in this 

proposal. Each C-value and efficiency level accounts for pump efficiency at all load 

points as well as motor losses, and does so equivalently across the full scope of flow and 

specific speed encompassed by this proposed rule. See section IV.C.4 for a complete 

examination of the efficiency levels analyzed in this rulemaking.

E. Compliance Date

Consistent with the recommendations of the CIP Working Group, see EERE2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, p. 4, Recommendation No. 9, DOE proposes to require that 

its standards would apply to equipment manufactured beginning on the date four years 

after the publication date of the final rule. DOE estimates that any final rule would

publish in late 2015, resulting in a compliance date for the standards in late 2019. In its 

analysis, DOE used an analysis period of 2020 through 2049.

45
F. Technological Feasibility

1. General

EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE 

prescribes be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE determines is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a).) In 

each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis 

based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs 

that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other 

interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency 

are technologically feasible. 

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically 

feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 

impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. (10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv).) Section IV.B of this 

notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for pumps, particularly the designs 

DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard 

levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

46
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or class of 

covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or 

maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6316(a).) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE 

determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy 

efficiency for pumps, using the design options that passed the screening analysis. 

G. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

EPCA provides that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE 

prescribes shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 

that DOE determines is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)−(B) and 

6316(a).) In addition, in determining whether such standard is technologically feasible 

and economically justified, DOE may not prescribe standards for certain types or classes 

of pumps if such standards would not result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a).)

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the pumps that are the subject 

of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of 

compliance with new standards (2020–2049).19 The savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of pumps purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy 

19 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a nine-year 

period.

47

 
savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each 

standards case and the base case. The base case represents a projection of energy 

consumption that currently exists in the marketplace in the absence of mandatory 

efficiency standards, and it considers market forces and policies that affect demand for 

more efficient products. To estimate the base case, DOE used data provided by the CIP 

Working Group, as discussed in section IV.H.2.

DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate 

energy savings from potential new standards for the equipment that is the subject of this 

rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) 

calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by 

products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national 

energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate this primary energy 

savings, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the 

Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).

DOE also estimates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings, as discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The FFC metric includes the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels) and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy 

efficiency standards. DOE’s approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier 

Comment [A13]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

48
for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. For more information on FFC 

energy savings, see section IV.H.1.a.

2. Significance of Savings

As noted above, EPCA prohibits DOE from adopting a standard for a covered 

product unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a).) Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that 

Congress intended “significant” energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings that 

were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for today’s proposed standards

(presented in section V.B.3.a) are nontrivial and, therefore, DOE considers them 

“significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

H. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential 

energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 

6316(a).) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 

factors in this rulemaking.

49
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in 

section IV.J. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative 

impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital

requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities 

must comply with the regulation–and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present value (INPV), which values 

the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in 

revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE 

analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts 

on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic 

manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for 

standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes 

into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in 

LCC and payback period (PBP) associated with new or amended standards. These 

measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to 

a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on 

50
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national 

standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered equipment that are likely to result from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6316(a).) DOE conducts this comparison 

in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a piece of equipment (including its 

installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair 

expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires 

a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy 

prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime 

and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each 

value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered 

equipment in the first year of compliance with new standards. 

The LCC savings for the efficiency levels considered in today’s NOPR are 

calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of 

new standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings 

51
associated with a particular standard level. DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in 

further detail in section IV.F.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement 

for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the 

economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 

6316(a).) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project 

national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(a).) Based on data available to DOE, the standards 

proposed in today’s notice would not reduce the utility or performance of the products 

under consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as 

determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6316(a).) It also directs the Attorney 

52
General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60

days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2) (B)(ii) and 6316(a).) DOE will transmit a 

copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will respond to the Attorney 

General’s determination in the final rule.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy conservation in determining 

whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a).) The energy savings from new or amended standards 

are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation’s energy 

system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the nation’s electricity system. DOE conducts a utility 

impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation’s needed power 

generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.

New or amended standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in 

the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with 

energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from the proposed standards, and 

from each TSL it considered, in section V.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates 

53
of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section IV.L.

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard 

is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6316(a).) In developing the proposed 

standard, DOE has also considered the term sheet of recommendations voted on by the 

CIP Working Group and approved by the ASRAC. (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-

0092.) DOE has weighed the value of such negotiation in establishing the standards 

proposed in today’s rule. DOE has encouraged the negotiation of proposed standard 

levels, in accordance with the FACA and the NRA, as a means for interested parties, 

representing diverse points of view, to analyze and recommend energy conservation 

standards to DOE. Such negotiations may often expedite the rulemaking process. In 

addition, standard levels recommended through a negotiation may increase the likelihood 

for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the value of the first year’s energy savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

54
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a).) DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the 

payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the threeyear payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to 

consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting 

or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The 

rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this 

proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments

DOE used four analytical tools to estimate the impact of today’s proposed 

standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates LCC and PBP of potential new

energy conservation standards. The second tool is a spreadsheet that provides shipments 

forecasts calculates national energy savings and net present value resulting from potential 

energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer impacts. Additionally, DOE 

used output from the latest version of EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) 

for the emissions and utility impact analyses. NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, 

partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its 

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), a widely known energy forecast for the United States.

55
A. Market and Technology Assessment

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops 

information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, 

including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on 

publicly available information (e.g., manufacturer specification sheets, industry 

publications) and data submitted by manufacturers, trade associations, and other 

stakeholders. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include: (1) Quantities and types of equipment sold and offered for sale; (2) 

retail market trends; (3) equipment covered by the rulemaking; (4) equipment classes; (5) 

manufacturers; (6) regulatory requirements and non-regulatory programs (such as rebate 

programs and tax credits); and (7) technologies that could improve the energy efficiency 

of the equipment under examination. DOE researched manufacturers of pumps and made 

a particular effort to identify and characterize small business manufacturers in this sector. 

See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology 

assessment.

1. Equipment Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides 

covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or 

other performance-related features that would justify a different standard from that which 

56
would apply to other equipment classes. DOE proposes dividing pumps into equipment 

classes based on the following three factors:

1. Basic pump equipment type,

2. Configuration, and

3. Nominal design speed.

DOE notes that some clean water pumps are sold for use with engines or turbines 

rather than electric motors, and as such, would use a different fuel type (i.e., fossil fuels 

rather than electricity). However, because of the small market share of clean water 

pumps using these fuel types, in the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that any pump 

sold with, or for use with, a driver other than an electric motor would be rated as a bare 

pump.20 Therefore, DOE did not disaggregate equipment classes by fuel type.

As discussed in section III.C, the five pump equipment types considered in this 

rulemaking, each of which DOE proposes would form the basis for an individual 

equipment class, include:

• End suction close coupled (ESCC);

• End suction frame mounted/own bearings (ESFM);

• In-line (IL);

• Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line casing, diffuser (RS-V); and

• Vertical turbine submersible (VT-S).

20 Such a rating would include the hydraulic efficiency of the bare pump as well as the efficiency of a 

minimally-compliant electric motor, as described in section III.D.1.

57

 
A pump’s configuration is defined by the equipment with which it is sold. Pumps 

sold inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous controls (as defined in the test 

procedure NOPR), capable of operation at multiple driver shaft speeds are defined as 

variable load (VL); pumps sold as bare pumps or with motors without such controls, 

capable only of operation at a fixed shaft speed, are defined as constant load (CL).21

In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on the use of pump design 

speed as a feature that distinguishes equipment classes as well as the burden associated 

with testing under multiple speeds. HI reported that often a manufacturer will need to 

make modifications to pumps that will be run at higher speed to allow for greater bearing 

loads. These may include changing the bearing frame size or modifying the axial thrust 

balancing device, which will impact pump efficiency. These potential modifications will 

vary by equipment class. (HI, No. 25 at p. 37-38.) Grundfos also added that speed is 

considered during the design of the pump, specifically as it relates to the design of the 

shaft and bearings. (Grundfos, No.24 at p. 23.) HI noted that pumps designed for 

different speeds are normally tested over the range of speeds for which the pumps will be 

offered for sale. A pump manufacturer offering the same pump at different speeds will 

have to account for any speed-related effects on efficiency and determine if the pump is

compliant with the required MEI level at all offered speeds. (HI, No.25 at p. 38.) Both 

21 In the Framework Document, DOE explored identifying specific equipment types that would always be 

used in a variable load application. In response, HI and Grundfos reported that application, rather than 

pump type or equipment class, controls whether the pump can be used in a variable load application. 

(Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 21; HI, No. 25 at p. 37).) The proposal is based on the assumption that a pump sold 

with speed controls is intended for a variable load application.

58

 
HI and Grundfos recommended harmonizing equipment classes with the EU, which 

regulates pumps designed for two- and four-pole nominal driver speeds separately, but at 

60 Hz frequency. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 22; HI, No. 25 at p. 38.) 

The CIP Working Group also recommended separate energy efficiency standards 

for equipment types at the nominal speeds for two- and four-pole motors. (See EERE2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, p. 4, Recommendation No. 9.) In its analysis, DOE found 

that across the market, pumps at each nominal speed demonstrate distinctly different 

performance. To account for this variability, DOE proposes that for both constant load

and variable load pumps, the equipment classes should also be differentiated on the basis 

of nominal design speed. Within the scope of this proposed rule, pumps may be defined 

as being designed for either 3,600 or 1,800 rpm nominal driver speeds. A pump with a 

3,600 rpm nominal speed is defined as a pump designed to operate at a maximum speed 

greater than 1,800 rpm and less than or equal to 3,600 rpm; an 1,800 rpm nominal speed 

pump is a pump designed to operate at a maximum speed greater than 1,200 rpm and less 

than or equal to 1,800 rpm. Throughout this document 3,600 rpm nominal is abbreviated 

as 3600, and 1,800 rpm nominal is abbreviated as 1800. 

Taking into account the basic pump equipment type, nominal design speed, and 

configuration, DOE proposes the following twenty equipment classes for the types of 

pumps to be addressed by this rulemaking:

• ESCC.1800.CL;

• ESCC.3600.CL;

• ESCC.1800.VL;

59
• ESCC.3600.VL;

• ESFM.1800.CL;

• ESFM.3600.CL;

• ESFM.1800.VL;

• ESFM.3600.VL;

• IL.1800.CL;

• IL.3600.CL;

• IL.1800.VL;

• IL.3600.VL;

• RS-V.1800.CL;

• RS-V.3600.CL;

• RS-V.1800.VL;

• RS-V.3600.VL;

• VT-S.1800.CL;

• VT-S.3600.CL;

• VT-S.1800.VL; and

• VT-S.3600.VL.

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD provides further detail on the definition of 

equipment classes.

As noted in section III.D, as proposed in the test procedure NOPR, CL equipment

classes would be rated with the PEICL metric, and VL equipment classes would be rated 

with the PEIVL metric. For today’s NOPR, however, DOE relied on available data for 

bare pumps. Therefore, DOE’s analysis is based on equipment type and nominal design 

speed only – reported results do not use a “.CL” or “.VL” designation. DOE is proposing 

identical standards for both CL and VL equipment classes.

60
2. Scope of Analysis and Data Availability

DOE collected data to conduct all NOPR analyses for the following equipment 

classes directly:

• ESCC.1800;

• ESCC.3600;

• ESFM.1800;

• ESFM.3600;

• IL.1800;

• IL.3600; and

• VT-S.3600.

The following subsections summarize DOE’s approach for the remaining 

equipment classes:

• RS-V.1800;

• RS-V.3600; and

• VT-S.1800.

a. Radially Split Multi-Stage Vertical (RS-V)

DOE used available information to identify baseline and the maximum 

technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency levels for this class. Specifically DOE’s 

contractors used market research and confidential manufacturer information to establish a 

61
database of RS-V models. The DOE contractor database represented models offered for 

sale in the United States by three major manufacturers of RS-V pumps. DOE reviewed

the efficiency data for these RS-V pumps and found no models to be less efficient than 

the European Union’s MEI 40 standard level, which took effect on January 1, 201522. 

Details of this analysis are presented in Chapter 5 of the TSD. This analysis, in 

conjunction with confidential discussions with manufacturers led DOE to conclude that

RS-V models sold in the United States market are global platforms with hydraulic

designs equivalent to those in the European market. As such, DOE presented this 

conclusion to the CIP Working Group for consideration, where it was supported and 

reaffirmed on numerous occasions (See, e.g. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0109 at pp. 91-

97, EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0105 at pp. 293-300, EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0106 

at pp. 38-40, 62-67, 88-95; EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0108 at pp. 119.)

As a result of the conclusion that RS-V models sold in the United States market 

are global platforms with hydraulic designs equivalent to those in the European market, 

DOE proposes to set the baseline and max-tech levels equal to those established in 

Europe. Specifically, the baseline would be the European minimum efficiency standard23, 

22 Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 

implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 

ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 

28-36. 23 Note that this NOPR and the European Union regulation use different metrics to represent efficiency. 

DOE used available data to establish harmonized baseline and max-tech efficiency levels using the DOE 

metric.

62

 
and the max-tech level would be the European level referred to as “the indicative 

benchmark for the best available technology24.”

Although DOE was able to establish a baseline and max-tech level using aspects 

of what has already been adopted for the European market, DOE was unable to develop a 

cost-efficiency relationship or additional efficiency levels for RS-V, due to lack of 

available cost data for this equipment. As a result, DOE has proposed a standard level for 

RS-V that is equivalent to the baseline, consistent with the recommendation of the CIP 

Working Group. (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, p. 4, Recommendation No. 9.)

Based on the data available and recommendation of the CIP Working Group, DOE 

concludes that this standard level is representative of the typical minimum efficiency 

configuration sold in this equipment class, and no significant impact is expected for either

the consumers or manufacturers.

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides complete details on RS-V data availability 

and the development of the baseline efficiency level.

DOE seeks comment on its assumption that all RS-V models sold in the United 

States are based on a global platform. This is identified as Issue 1 in section VIII.E, 

“Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

24 Council of the European Union. 2012. Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2012 of 25 June 2012 

implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to 

ecodesign requirements for water pumps. Official Journal of the European Union. L 165, 26 June 2012, pp. 

28-36.

Comment [A14]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

63

 
b. Vertical Turbine Submersible (VT-S).1800

Market research, confidential manufacturer data, and direct input from the CIP 

Working Group indicate that the 4-pole electric motor-driven submersible vertical turbine 

(VT-S.1800) is a very uncommon pump configuration in the marketplace. Existing 

models are hydraulically identical to the 2-pole-based model, with the only differences 

being in the type of motor used. This means that every 4-pole-based model is constructed 

from a bare pump that was originally designed for use with a 2-pole motor. Total 

shipments for this equipment class are estimated to be less than 1 percent of the VTS.3600 equipment class. On the recommendation of the CIP Working Group (See EERE2013-BT-NOC-0039-0105 at pp. 300-308; EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0106 at pp. 38-

40, 62-67, 88-95), DOE proposes efficiency levels for VT-S.1800 equal to that of the VTS.3600 equipment class. Chapter 5 of NOPR TSD provides complete details on the 

development of the VT-S.1800 efficiency levels.

DOE seeks comment on whether any pump models would meet the proposed 

standard at a nominal speed of 3600 but fail at a nominal speed of 1800 if the same Cvalues were used for each equipment class. This issue is identified as Issue 2 in section 

VIII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

3. Technology Assessment

In the Framework Document, DOE listed the following technologies that can

improve pump efficiency: 

64
• Improved hydraulic design;

• Improved surface finish on wetted components;

• Reduced running clearances;

• Reduced mechanical friction in seals;

• Reduction of other volumetric losses;

• Addition of a variable speed drive (VSD);

• Improvement of VSD efficiency; and

• Reduced VSD standby and off mode power usage. 

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD details each of these technology options. DOE 

solicited and received numerous stakeholder comments regarding these options in the 

Framework Document. The following sections summarize the stakeholder comments.

a. General Discussion of Technology Options

In the Framework Document, DOE requested comment on the applicability of the 

technology options presented and the accuracy of the potential efficiency gains listed. HI

agreed that the presented technology options are applicable to the types of pumps being 

discussed, but it emphasized that DOE’s estimates of potential efficiency gains are 

representative of the differences between the very worst and very best in class pump 

designs. HI also stated that the estimated efficiency gains listed by DOE in the 

Framework document are likely to be larger than the gains that would be realized for 

pumps that would be subject to an efficiency standard. (HI, Framework Public Meeting 

Transcript at pp. 297-298; HI, No. 25 at p. 9;HI, No. 25 at p. 39.) 

65
Grundfos also commented on the applicability of the technology options. They 

suggested that certain design options are interrelated, noting that optimizing components 

such as the impeller (i.e., the primary rotating component of a centrifugal pump) and 

volute (i.e., the primary static component of a centrifugal pump) can reduce volumetric 

losses and improve efficiency. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 25.) Grundfos suggested that 

using combinations of options, such as hydraulic redesign, reduced running clearance, 

and reduced volumetric losses, may all be incorporated into the design of the pump to 

optimize the desired characteristics. (Id.) 

DOE has incorporated both of these suggestions into its market and technology, 

screening, and engineering analyses.

b. Additional Technology Options

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE evaluate technology options that facilitate 

maintenance or improve average performance over a pump's lifetime. These include 

wear rings, flange taps, and compression sleeves. (CA IOUs, No. 26 at pp. 3, 4.) DOE 

evaluated all available technology options related to pump performance and efficiency, as 

defined by the proposed PEI metric and test procedure. While the technology options 

proposed by the CA IOUs may improve maintainability and average performance over a 

pump’s lifetime, they were not found to have a significant impact on pump efficiency (as 

defined by the test procedure) as stand-alone technology options and, thus, were not 

considered in the analysis. 

66
c. Applicability of Technology Options to Reduced Diameter Impellers

In the Framework Document, DOE also solicited comments on how the 

technology options might impact pumps with reduced diameter impellers. In response,

HI observed that pursuing efficiency improvements specific to only trimmed impellers 

would prove costly and result in only minor efficiency gains. (HI, No. 25 at p. 39.)

Grundfos noted that modifications in the pump design to achieve improved performance 

are not specific to the impeller trim, but to the design of all components as a whole.

(Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 26.)

DOE is proposing to set energy conservation standards for pump efficiency based 

on the pump’s full impeller diameter characteristics, which would require testing the 

pump at its full impeller diameter. As such, DOE’s analyses of technology options have 

been made with respect to the full diameter model. In proposing to set standards only on 

the full diameter, DOE considered that improvements made to the full diameter pumps 

will also improve the efficiency for all trimmed or reduced diameter variants.

d. Elimination of Technology Options Due to Low Energy Savings Potential.

DOE eliminated some technologies that were determined to provide little or no 

potential for efficiency improvement for one of the following additional reasons: (a) the 

technology does not significantly improve efficiency; (b) the technology is not applicable 

to the equipment being considered for coverage or does not significantly improve 

67
efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment class; and (c) efficiency 

improvements from the technology degrade quickly.

DOE found that most of the technology options identified in the Framework 

Document have limited potential to improve the efficiency of pumps. In addition, DOE 

found that several of the options also do not pass the screening criteria listed in section 

III.B. DOE discusses the elimination of all of these technologies in section III.B.

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE generally uses four screening factors to determine which technology options 

are suitable for further consideration in a standards rulemaking. If a technology option 

fails to meet any one of the factors, it is removed from consideration. The factors for 

screening design options include:

1) Technological feasibility. Technologies incorporated in commercial products 

or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.

2) Practicability to manufacture, install and service. If mass production of a 

technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of 

the technology could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology 

will be considered practicable to manufacture, install and service.

3) Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability.

4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, sections (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b).

68
1. Screened Out Technologies

Improved Surface Finish on Wetted Components

Grundfos suggested that smoothing the surface finish of pump components is a 

time consuming manual activity that should not be considered to be a practical 

manufacturing process. (Grundfos, No. 24 at pp. 25-26.) Additionally, HI responded to

DOE’s initial estimates of available efficiency improvement by noting that its experience 

has shown that smoothing and surface finish have very little effect at higher specific 

speeds and for the range of pumps that are commonly in service. (HI, No. 25 at p. 39.)

HI, Grundfos, and ACEEE all suggested that gains in efficiency from improved surface 

finish and smoothing are non-persistent, with the surface finish quickly being degraded in 

most applications. (HI, No.25 at pp. 9, 39; Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 25; ACEEE, 

Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 299.) Based on these comments, the 

agreement of the CIP Working Group (EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0109 at pp. 91-97 pp. 

46-50), and the information obtained from manufacturer interviews, DOE observed that, 

at this time, manual smoothing poses a number of significant drawbacks – (1) the process 

is manually-intensive, which makes it impractical to implement in a production 

environment, (2) the efficiency improvements from this process degrade over a short 

period of time, and (3) the relative magnitude of efficiency improvements are small (e.g.,

approximately 20:1 for a baseline pump with a specific speed of 2,500 RPMs) when 

compared to other options, such as hydraulic redesign. Consequently, after considering 

these limitations and the relative benefits that might be possible from including this 

particular option, DOE concluded that manual smoothing operations would not be likely 

69
to significantly improve the energy efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment 

class DOE is currently examining. Consequently, DOE screened this technology option 

out. Chapters 3 and 4 of NOPR TSD provide further details on the justification for 

screening out this technology.

In addition to smoothing operations, DOE also evaluated two additional methods 

for improving surface finish; (1) surface coating or plating, and (2) improved casting 

techniques. In addition to being unable to significantly improve efficiency across the 

entire scope of each equipment class, surface coatings and platings were also screened 

out due to reliability and durability concerns, and improved casting techniques were 

screened out because the efficiency improvements from the technology degrade quickly. 

Chapters 3 and 4 of NOPR TSD provide further details on these methods for surface 

finish improvement, and justification for screening out.

Reduced Running Clearances

Grundfos stated that reducing running clearances is a method used by most 

manufacturers in the design of the individual components with the use of wear rings.

(Grundfos, No. 24 at p.25.) HI suggested that the reduction in running clearances may 

improve efficiency in some applications, depending on specific speed, but it noted that 

reduced running clearances may also lead to mechanical reliability problems leading to 

the added expense of larger (stiffer) shafts, larger bearings, and advanced or more costly 

wear ring materials. (HI, No. 25 at p. 39.) HI and ACEEE also suggest that the 

efficiency improvements from tightened running clearances degrade quickly. (HI, 

70
Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 329; ACEEE, Framework Public Meeting 

Transcript at p. 299.)

Manufacturer interview responses indicate that clearances are currently set as 

tight as possible, given the limitations of current wear ring materials, machining 

tolerances, and pump assembly practices. To tighten clearance any further without 

causing operational contact between rotating and static components would require larger 

(stiffer) shafts, and larger (stiffer) bearings. Without these stiffer components, 

operational contact will lead to accelerated pump wear and loosened clearances. 

Loosened clearances cause the initial efficiency improvements to quickly degrade. 

Alternatively, the use of larger components to improve the stiffness to appropriate levels 

results in increased mechanical losses. These losses negate the potential improvements 

gained from reduced clearances. Consequently, DOE proposes to eliminate this 

technology option because of the reliability concerns highlighted by HI and the concerns 

of quickly degrading efficiency improvements highlighted by HI and ACEEE. For 

additional details on the screening of reduced running clearances, see chapter 4 of the 

NOPR TSD.

Reduced Mechanical Friction in Seals

DOE evaluated mechanical seal technologies that offered reduced friction when 

compared to commonly used alternatives. DOE concluded from this evaluation that the 

reduction in friction resulting from improved mechanical seals would be too small to 

71
significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment class. For 

additional details, see chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD.

Reduction of Other Volumetric Losses

The most common causes of volumetric losses (other than previously discussed 

technology options) are thrust balance holes. (Thrust balance holes are holes located in 

the face of an impeller that act to balance the axial loads on the impeller shaft and thus 

reduce wear on rub surfaces and bearings). DOE found that removal of thrust balance 

holes from existing impellers will reduce pump reliability. DOE notes that manufacturers 

may be able to decrease volumetric losses by reducing the number and/or diameter of 

thrust balance holes as a part of a full hydraulic redesign. For additional details, see 

chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD.

Addition of a Variable Speed Drive (VSD) 

Grundfos suggested that variable speed drives are a proven method to optimize 

pump operation and reduce energy consumption. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 25.) DOE 

agrees that variable speed drives are a proven method to optimize pump operation, but 

only for certain pump applications for which standards are being considered. DOE’s 

analysis has shown that there are many applications for these types of pumps that will not 

benefit from a VSD. For common applications, such as systems that have unvarying flow 

and head requirements (constant load), on/off operation, or high percentages of static 

72
head,

25 VFDs may not save energy and may even increase energy consumption when 

factoring in the efficiency of the VFD unit. EEI reported that technologies that reduce 

power factor below 85 percent should be screened out because of deleterious impacts on 

the electric grid but that most VSDs will not reduce power factors to levels that would 

create extra costs for consumers. (EEI, No. 31 at p. 4.)

Because there are many application types and load profiles that would not benefit 

from a VSD, and many applications for which energy use would increase with a VSD, 

DOE has eliminated the use of VSDs from the list of technology options. For additional 

details, see chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD.

Improvement of VSD Efficiency

Grundfos stated that proper selection, operation and integration of a VSD with a 

pump and motor are more important than improving the efficiency of the VSD alone.

(Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 25.) Because DOE has eliminated the use of VSDs as a 

technology option, improvement of VSD efficiency will also not be considered as 

technology option. For additional details, see chapters 3 and 4 of the NOPR TSD.

Reduced VSD Standby and Off Mode Power Usage

Grundfos stated that reducing VSD standby and off mode power usage has a 

minor impact on energy efficiency, but can add to the efficiency of the control strategy.

25Static head is the component of total dynamic head that results from the fluid being lifted a certain height 

above the pump. Unlike dynamic head, static head requirements stay constant across the system curve, 

even at zero flow. 

73

 
(Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 25.) Available information supports Grundfos’ characterization 

of the relative benefits of improved VSD efficiency and reduced standby and off mode 

power usage. Although improving VSD efficiency and standby/off mode power may 

help improve overall pump efficiency, DOE has concluded that not all pumps for which 

DOE is considering standards in this rule would benefit from the use of a VSD. In 

addition, VSD standby and off model power usage would not impact the PEI rating of 

equipment as tested under the DOE test procedure. As such, DOE is not considering

improved VSD efficiency and reduced standby and off mode power usage as design 

options in the engineering analysis. For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR 

TSD.

2. Remaining Technologies

DOE found that only improved hydraulic design met all four screening criteria to 

be examined further in DOE’s analysis. HI commented that hydraulic redesign will be 

the most prominent method used to improve efficiency because many of the easy to 

implement efficiency gains, such as tighter clearances, have already been explored by 

manufacturers. (HI, Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 328.) The results of 

DOE’s screening analysis support HI’s comment. 

Improved hydraulic design is technologically feasible, as there is equipment on 

the market that has utilized this technology option. DOE also finds that improved 

hydraulic design meets the other screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, 

install, and service and no adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, 

74
health, or safety). As such, DOE considered hydraulic redesign as a design option in the 

engineering analysis. For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis determines the manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased efficiency or decreased energy consumption. DOE historically has used the 

following three methodologies to generate the manufacturing costs needed for its 

engineering analyses: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the incremental 

costs of adding to a baseline model design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the 

efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in 

energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve 

such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which 

provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 

increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and material, labor, 

shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular efficiency 

levels.

DOE conducted the engineering analyses for this rulemaking using a designoption approach. The decision to use this approach was made due to several factors, 

including the wide variety of equipment analyzed, the lack of numerous levels of 

equipment efficiency currently available in the market, and the limited design options 

available for the equipment. More specifically, for the hydraulic redesign option, DOE 

used industry research to determine changes in manufacturing costs and energy 

75
efficiency. DOE directly analyzed costs for the equipment classes listed in section 

IV.A.2. Consistent with HI’s recommendation (HI, Framework Public Meeting 

Transcript at p. 329) and available data, DOE concluded that it was infeasible to 

determine the upfront costs (engineering time, tooling, new patterns, qualification, etc.) 

associated with hydraulic redesign via reverse engineering. 

The following sections briefly discuss the methodology used in the engineering 

analysis. Complete details of the engineering analysis are available in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD.

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis 

a. Representative Configuration Selection 

For the engineering analysis, DOE directly analyzed the cost-efficiency 

relationship for all equipment classes specified in in section IV.A.1, over the full range of 

sizes, for all pumps falling within the proposed scope. Within the engineering analysis, 

“size” is defined by a pump’s flow at BEP and specific speed. Analyzing over the full 

size range allowed DOE to use representative configurations for each equipment class, 

rather than an approach that analyzes a representative unit from each class. A 

representative unit has a defined size and defined features, while a representative 

configuration defines only the features of the pump, allowing the cost-efficiency analysis 

to consider a large range of data points that occur over the full range of sizes. This 

method addresses the concerns of both EEI and HI that the equipment classes considered 

by DOE encompass too much variation to effectively be characterized by one 

76
representative unit. (EEI, Framework Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 275-276; HI, 

Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 286.)

In selecting representative configurations, DOE researched the offerings of major 

manufacturers to select configurations generally representative of the typical offerings 

produced within each equipment class. Configurations and features were based on highshipment-volume designs prevalent in the market. The key features that define each 

representative configuration include impeller material, impeller production method, 

volute/casing material, volute/casing production method, and seal type. 

For the ESCC, ESFM, and IL equipment classes, the representative configuration 

was defined as a pump fitted with a cast bronze impeller; cast-iron volute; and 

mechanical seal. For the RS-V and VT-S equipment classes, the representative 

configuration was defined as a pump fitted with sheet metal-based fabricated stainlesssteel impeller(s), and sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel casing and internal 

static components. Chapter 5 of the TSD provides further detail on representative 

configurations.

b. Baseline Configuration

The baseline configuration defines the lowest efficiency equipment in each 

analyzed equipment class. This configuration represents equipment that utilizes the 

lowest efficiency technologies present in the market. Because DOE directly analyzed the 

cost-efficiency relationship over the full range of sizes, DOE defined a baseline 

Comment [A15]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

77
configuration applicable across all sizes, rather than a more specific baseline model. This 

baseline configuration ultimately defines the energy consumption and associated cost for 

the lowest efficiency equipment analyzed in each class.

DOE established baseline configurations by reviewing available manufacturer

performance and sales data for equipment manufactured at the time of the analysis. 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD sets forth the process that DOE used to select the baseline 

configuration for each equipment class and discusses the baseline in greater detail. 

2. Design Options

After conducting the screening analysis and removing from consideration 

technologies that did not warrant inclusion on technical grounds, DOE considered 

hydraulic redesign as a design option in the NOPR engineering analysis.

3. Available Energy Efficiency Improvements

For each equipment class, DOE assessed the available energy efficiency 

improvements resulting from a hydraulic redesign. This assessment was informed by

manufacturer performance and cost data, confidential manufacturer interview responses, 

general industry research, and stakeholder input gathered at the CIP Working Group

public meetings. DOE concluded that a hydraulic redesign is capable of improving the 

efficiency of a pump up to and including the max-tech level (discussed in section 

IV.C.4.a). The efficiency gains that a manufacturer realizes from a hydraulic redesign 

are expected to be commensurate with the level of effort and capital a manufacturer 

78
invests in redesign. Section IV.C.7 discusses the relationship between efficiency gains 

and conversion cost in more detail. 

4. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

In assessing the cost associated with hydraulic redesign, and carrying through to 

all downstream analyses, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels. Each level consists of 

a specific C-value, as shown in Table IV.1. (See section III.D.1 for more information 

about C-values and the related equations.)

Table IV.1 Efficiency Levels Analyzed with Corresponding C-values

Equipment 

Class

EL0 EL1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

Baseline

10th

Efficiency 

Percentile

25th

Efficiency 

Percentile

40th

Efficiency 

Percentile

55th

Efficiency 

Percentile

70th

Efficiency 

Percentile / 

Max Tech

ESCC.1800 134.43 131.63 128.47 126.67 125.07 123.71

ESCC.3600 135.94 134.60 130.42 128.92 127.35 125.29

ESFM.1800 134.99 132.95 128.85 127.04 125.12 123.71

ESFM.3600 136.59 134.98 130.99 129.26 127.77 126.07

IL.1800 135.92 133.95 129.30 127.30 126.00 124.45

IL.3600 141.01 138.86 133.84 131.04 129.38 127.35

RS-V.1800* 129.63 N/A N/A N/A N/A 124.73

RS-V.3600* 133.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A 129.10

VT-S.1800 137.62 135.93 134.13 130.83 128.92 127.29

VT-S.3600 137.62 135.93 134.13 130.83 128.92 127.29

*For RS-V equipment, DOE established only baseline and max-tech efficiency 

levels due to limited data availability. 

a. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

Efficiency level five (EL5), as shown in Table IV.1, represents the maximum 

technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for the ESCC, ESFM, IL, and VTS equipment classes. EL1 represents max-tech for the RS-V equipment classes. To set 

the max-tech level for the applicable equipment classes, DOE performed an analysis to 

Comment [A16]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

79
determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible for each equipment class.

DOE considers technologies to be technologically feasible if they are incorporated 

in any currently available equipment or working prototypes. A max-tech level results 

from the combination of design options predicted to result in the highest efficiency level 

possible for an equipment class. 

In the case of pumps, DOE determined, based on available information and 

consistent with the conclusions of the CIP Working Group, that pumps are a mature 

technology, with all available design options already existing in the marketplace.

26

Therefore, DOE assumed in its analysis that the max-tech efficiency level coincides with 

the maximum available efficiency already offered in the marketplace. As a result, DOE 

performed a market-based analysis to determine max-tech/max-available levels. The 

analysis resulted in the 70th efficiency percentile being consider max-tech for each 

equipment class. A preliminary version of this analysis was provided to the CIP Working 

Group during the April 29-30, 2014 meetings. (EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0051, pp. 17-

32) This analysis proposed the 70th efficiency percentile as the max-tech level and 

solicited feedback on alternative opinions. Ultimately no alternative feedback on maxtech was received, and the CIP Working Group implicitly agreed with DOE’s proposal, 

and incorporated the 70th efficiency percentile as the highest TSL level evaluated.

26 See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, pp.103-105.

80

 
Chapter 5 of NOPR TSD provides complete details on DOE’s market-based max-tech 

analysis and results. 

 DOE’s market-based approach directly addresses Grundfos’ concerns (in 

response to the Framework Document) that it is difficult to accurately predict maximum 

efficiency levels using theoretical models. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 28).

In response to the CA IOUs concerns that manufacturers might not be currently 

making the most efficient pumps possible in all segments of the market. See CA IOUs, 

Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 331, DOE notes that the maximum available 

efficiency level was determined using a regression analysis across pumps of all sizes 

within each equipment class. As such, a broadly applicable max-tech/max-available level 

was developed, which does not provide any advantage or disadvantage to current low 

efficiency sub-segments of the market. 

5. Manufacturers Production Cost Assessment Methodology

a. Changes in MPC Associated with Hydraulic Redesign

DOE performed an analysis for each equipment class to determine the change in 

manufacturer production cost (MPC), if any, associated with a hydraulic redesign. For 

this analysis, DOE reviewed the manufacturer selling price (MSP), component cost, 

performance, and efficiency data supplied by both individual manufacturers and HI. 

DOE, with the support of the majority of the CIP Working Group, concluded that for all 

equipment classes, a hydraulic redesign is not expected to increase the MPC of the 

Comment [A17]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

81
representative pump configuration used for analysis.

27 Specifically, a hydraulic redesign 

is not expected to increase production or purchase cost of a pump’s two primary 

components; the impeller and the volute. 

DOE acknowledges that actual changes in MPC experienced by individual 

manufacturers will vary, and that in some cases redesigns may actually increase or 

decrease the cost of the impeller and/or volute. However, available information indicates

that the flat MPC-versus-efficiency relationship best represents the aggregated pump 

industry as a whole. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides complete details on DOE’s 

MPC-efficiency analysis and results.

b. Manufacturer Production Cost (MPC) Model

For each equipment class, DOE developed a scalable cost model to estimate MPC 

across all pump sizes. Given a pump’s specific speed and BEP flow, the cost model 

outputs an estimated MPC. Because hydraulic redesign is not expected to result in an 

increase in MPC, the model is efficiency-independent and predicts the same MPC for all 

pumps of the identical BEP flow, specific speed, and equipment class, regardless of 

efficiency. 

The DOE MPC model was developed using data supplied by both HI and 

individual manufacturers. This data set includes information on the MSP, manufacturer 

27 Refer to the following transcripts in which the conclusion of no change in MPC with improved efficiency 

is presented to the working group and discussed: EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, pp. 114-130 and pp. 

270-273; EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0109, p.264).

 

82

 
markup, shipments volumes, model performance and efficiency, and various other 

parameters. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides additional detail on the development 

of the MPC model.

6. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

DOE expects that hydraulic redesigns will result in significant conversion costs 

for manufacturers as they attempt to bring their pumps into compliance with the 

proposed standard. DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) 

product conversion costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make product designs comply with a new or amended energy 

conservation standard. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that new 

product designs can be fabricated and assembled.

To evaluate the magnitude of the product and capital conversion costs the pump 

industry would incur to comply with new energy conservation standards, DOE used a 

bottom-up approach. For this approach, DOE first determined the industry-average cost, 

per model, to redesign pumps of varying sizes to meet each of the proposed efficiency 

levels. DOE then modeled the distribution of unique pump models that would require 

redesign at each efficiency level. For each efficiency level, DOE multiplied each unique 

failing model by its associated cost to redesign and summed the total to reach an 

estimate of the total product and capital conversion cost for the industry.

83
Data supplied to DOE by HI was used as the basis for the industry-average cost, 

per model, to redesign a failing pump model. HI, through an independent third party, 

surveyed 15 manufacturers regarding the product and conversion costs associated with 

redesigning one-, 50-, and 200-hp pumps from the 10th to the 40th percentile of market 

efficiency. Specifically, HI’s survey contained cost categories for the following: 

redesign; prototype and initial test; patterns and tooling; testing; working capital; and 

marketing. 

DOE validated the HI survey data with independent analysis and comparable 

independently collected manufacturer interview data. In addition, data from the EU

pumps regulation preparatory study28 was used to augment the HI survey data and scale 

costs to various efficiency levels above and below the 40th percentile.

During the framework meeting, CA IOUs recommended that DOE use mature 

market estimates to determine costs associated with efficiency improvements rather than 

an approach based on the current market. (CA IOUs, Framework Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 19, at pp. 324, 345.) In previous rules, the CA IOUs commented that the

cost to improve efficiency has been overestimated. DOE recognizes the concerns of the 

CA IOUs and notes that hydraulic redesigns are a mature technology option and as such, 

28 AEA Energy & Environment. 2008, Appendix 6: Lot 11 – ‘Circulators in buildings,’ Report to European 

Commission. 

84

 
the redesign costs used in the NOPR analysis represent the mature market cost of the 

technology option. 

DOE used a pump model database, developed by its contractors, containing 

various performance parameters, to model the distribution of unique pump models that 

would require redesign at each efficiency level. The DOE contractor database is 

comprised of a combination of data supplied by HI and data collected independently 

from manufacturers by the DOE. For the ESCC, ESFM, IL, and VT equipment classes, 

the database is of suitable size to be representative of the industry as a whole. Table 

IV.2 presents the resulting product and capital conversion costs for each equipment 

class, at each efficiency level. Complete details on the calculation of industry aggregate 

product and capital conversion costs are found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

Table IV.2 Total Conversion Cost at Each Efficiency Level

All Values in 

Millions of Dollars

EL0 EL1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

ESCC/ESFM* $0 $12.4 $49.4 $110.6 $210.4 $344.7

IL $0 $5.1 $20.0 $45.3 $88.2 $144.0

VT-S $0 $2.5 $9.3 $19.2 $37.8 $61.3

RS-V $0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Data Not 

Available *

Due to commonality in design and components, DOE calculated the conversion costs for ESCC and ESFM 

in aggregate. These values were later disaggregated, as appropriate, in downstream analyses.

7. Manufacturer Markup Analysis

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the full MPC. The 

resulting MSP is the price at which the manufacturer can recover all production and nonproduction costs and earn a profit. To meet the new energy conservation standards 

85
proposed in this rule, DOE expects that manufacturers will hydraulically redesign their 

product lines, which may result in new and increased capital and equipment conversion 

costs. Depending on the competitive environment for this equipment, some or all of the 

increased conversion costs may be passed from manufacturers to retailers and eventually 

to consumers in the form of higher purchase prices. The MSP should be high enough to 

recover the full cost of the equipment (i.e., full production and non-production costs) and 

overhead (including amortized product and capital conversion costs), and still yield a 

profit. The manufacturer markup has an important bearing on profitability. A high 

markup under a standards scenario suggests manufacturers can readily pass along more of 

the increased capital and equipment conversion costs to consumers. A low markup 

suggests that manufacturers will not be able to recover as much of the necessary 

investment in plant and equipment.

DOE developed initial estimates of the base case manufacturer markups based on 

corporate annual reports, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K filings, 

confidential manufacturer data, and comments made publicly during the CIP Working 

Group negotiations.

To support the downstream analyses, DOE investigated industry markups in 

detail, characterizing industry-average markups, individual manufacturer markup 

structures, and the industry-wide markup structure. 

86
a. Industry-average markups

Industry-average manufacturer markups were developed by weighting individual

manufacturer markup estimates on a market share basis, as manufacturers with larger 

market shares more significantly affect the market average.

b. Individual manufacturer markup structures

Using data and information gathered during the manufacturer interviews, DOE 

concluded that within an equipment class, each manufacturer maintains a flat markup. 

This means that each manufacturer targets a single markup value for models offered in an 

equipment class, regardless of size, efficiency, or other design features. Tiered product 

offerings and markups do not exist at the individual manufacturer level. 

c. Industry-wide markup structure

DOE also used the markup data gathered during the manufacturer interviews to 

assess the industry-wide markup structure. Although tiered product offerings and 

markups do not exist at the individual manufacturer level, DOE concluded that when 

analyzed as whole, the industry exhibits a relationship between manufacturer markup and 

efficiency. DOE’s analysis showed that on the industry-wide scale, the lowest efficiency 

models tend to garner lower markups than higher efficiency models, up to about the 25th

percentile of efficiency. Beyond the 25th percentile, the relationship flattens out, and no 

correlation is seen between markup and efficiency. The data suggest that this relationship 

is a result of certain manufacturers positioning themselves with more or less efficient 

product portfolios and charging markups commensurate with their position in the 

87
marketplace. They also indicate (consistent with the views of the CIP Working Group) 

that the market does not value efficiency beyond the lower 25th percentile. (EERE-2013-

BT-NOC-0039-0072, pp. 269-278; EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0054, pp. 67-69.) In 

both private interviews and public working group comments, manufacturers held the 

view that efficiency is not currently the primary selling point or cost driver for the 

majority of pumps within the scope of the proposed rule. Rather, other factors, such as 

reliability, may influence price significantly and are known to be more influential in the 

purchaser’s decision making process. (EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, pp. 269-278.)

DOE notes that the development of the markup-efficiency relationship was based 

on data from the IL equipment class. DOE, with support of the CIP Working Group, 

concludes that the markup structure of the IL equipment class is representative of the 

ESCC, ESFM, and VT-S equipment classes29. DOE applied the IL markup-efficiency 

relationship to these equipment classes, for use in the analyses presented in this NOPR. 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides complete details the markup-efficiency 

relationship analysis and results.

8. MSP-Efficiency Relationship

Ultimately, the goal of the engineering analysis is to develop an MSP-Efficiency 

relationship that can be used in downstream rulemaking analyses such as the Life Cycle 

29 Refer to the following transcript in which the conclusion that the markup structure of the IL equipment 

class is representative of the ESCC, ESFM, and VT-S equipment classes is presented to the working group 

and no negative feedback is received: EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, pp. 292-295.

88

 
Cost (LCC) analysis, the Payback Period (PBP) analysis, and the Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis (MIA). 

For the downstream analyses, DOE evaluated the base case MSP-Efficiency 

relationship as well as two separate MSP-Efficiency relationship scenarios to represent 

the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the implementation of new energy conservation standards. The 

two scenarios are: (1) flat pricing, and (2) cost recovery pricing. These scenarios result in 

varying revenue and cash flow impacts and were chosen to represent the lower and upper 

bounds of potential revenues for manufacturers.

The base pricing scenario represents a snapshot of the pump market, as it stands 

prior to this rulemaking. The base pricing scenario was developed by applying the 

markup-efficiency relationship presented in section IV.C.7.c to the MPC model presented 

in section IV.C.5.a. Both the markup and MPC model are based on data supplied by 

individual manufacturers. From these data, DOE created a scalable model that can 

determine MSP as a function of efficiency, specific speed, and flow at BEP. 

Under the flat pricing standards case scenario, DOE maintains the same pricing as 

in the base case, which resulted in no price changes at a given efficiency level for the 

manufacturer’s first consumer. Because this pricing scenario assumes that manufacturers 

would not increase their pricing as a result of standards, even as they incur conversion 

costs, this scenario is considered a lower bound for revenues.

89
In the cost recovery pricing scenario, manufacturer pricing is set so that 

manufacturers recover their conversion costs over the analysis period. This cost recovery 

is enabled by an increase in mark-up, which results in higher sales prices for pumps even 

as MPCs stay the same. The cost recovery calculation assumes manufacturers raise 

prices on models where a redesign is necessitated by the standard. The additional 

revenue due to the increase in markup results in manufacturers recovering 100 percent of 

their conversion costs over the 30-year analysis period, taking into account the time-value 

of money. The final MSP-efficiency relationship for this scenario is created by applying 

the markup-efficiency relationship to the MPC cost model presented in section IV.C.5.b., 

resulting in a scalable model that can determine MSP as a function of efficiency, specific 

speed, and flow at BEP. In the LCC and NIA analysis, DOE evaluated only the cost 

recovery pricing scenario, as it would be the most conservative case for consumers, 

resulting in the fewest benefits30. 

D. Markups Analysis

DOE uses markups (e.g., manufacturer markups, distributor markups, contractor 

markups) and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates from the engineering analysis to 

consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. The markups are multipliers that represent increases 

above the MSP. DOE develops baseline and incremental markups based on the 

30 The cost recovery pricing scenario is the most conservative case (i.e., resulting in the fewest benefits) for 

consumers and the most positive case for manufacturers (i.e., resulting in the fewest negative impacts). In 

the MIA, DOE analyses this scenario and the flat pricing scenario, which results in the most positive case 

for consumer and the most conservative case for manufacturers. 

90

 
equipment markups at each step in the distribution chain. The incremental markup 

relates the change in the manufacturer sales price of higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase) to the change in the consumer price. 

Before developing markups, DOE defines key market participants and identifies 

distribution channels. In the Framework Document, DOE presented initial information 

regarding the distribution channels for pumps. DOE revised these channels and their 

assigned market share in response to manufacturer interviews and discussions in the CIP 

Working Group. (See, e.g., EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, pp. 327-330.) Based on 

this information, DOE proposes to use the following main distribution channels that 

describe how pumps pass from the manufacturer to end-users: (1) Manufacturer to 

distributor to contractor to end-users (70 percent of sales); (2) manufacturer to distributor 

to end-users (17 percent of sales); (3) manufacturer to original equipment manufacturer to 

end-users (8 percent of sales); (4) manufacturer to end-users (2 percent of sales); and (5) 

manufacturer to contractor to end-users (1 percent of sales). Other distribution channels 

exist but are estimated to account for a minor share of pump sales (combined 2 percent). 

To develop markups for the parties involved in the distribution of the equipment, 

DOE utilized several sources, including: (1) the U.S. Census Bureau 2007 Economic 

Census Manufacturing Industry Series (NAICS 33 Series)31 to develop original 

equipment manufacturer markups; (2) the U.S. Census Bureau 2012 Annual Wholesale 

Trade Survey, Hardware, and Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies Merchant 

31 U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Economic Census Manufacturing Industry Series (NAICS 33 Series) 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm

91

 
Wholesalers32 to develop distributor markups; and (3) 2013 RS Means Electrical Cost 

Data33 to develop mechanical contractor markups. 

In addition to the markups, DOE derived State and local taxes from data provided 

by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.34 These data represent weighted-average taxes that 

include county and city rates. DOE derived shipment-weighted-average tax values for 

each region considered in the analysis.

In the Framework Document, DOE also considered accounting for shipping costs 

in its markups analysis. In response to the Framework Document, Grundfos noted that 

transportation and shipping costs from freight companies and package delivery 

companies are based on size, weight and transit time requirements. (Grundfos, No. 24 at 

p. 31.) DOE’s understanding is that pump size and weight do not change with efficiency 

level; therefore, DOE did not account for shipping costs in this analysis.

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides further detail on the estimation of markups. 

Because the identified market channels are complex and their characterization 

required a number of assumptions, DOE seeks input on its analysis of market channels 

for the above equipment classes, particularly related to whether the channels include all 

necessary intermediate steps, and the estimated market share of each channel. DOE 

32 U.S. Census Bureau (2012). Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, Hardware, and Plumbing and Heating 

Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 4237). 

http://www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html 33 RS Means (2013), Electrical Cost Data, 36th Annual Edition (Available at: http://www.rsmeans.com). 34 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. (last accessed on January 10, 2014), State sales tax rates along with 

combined average city and county rates, http://thestc.com/STrates.stm

92

 
identified this as Issue 3 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E

of this NOPR.

E. Energy Use Analysis

DOE analyzed the energy use of pumps to estimate the savings in energy costs 

that consumers would realize from more energy-efficient pump equipment. Annual 

energy use depends on a number of factors that depend on the utilization of the pump, 

particularly duty point (i.e., flow, head, and power required for a given application), 

pump sizing, annual hours of operation, load profiles, and equipment losses. The annual 

energy use is calculated as a weighted sum of input power multiplied by the annual 

operating hours across all load points.

1. Duty Point

DOE researched information on duty points for the commercial, industrial, and 

agricultural sectors from a variety of sources. DOE identified statistical samples only for 

the agricultural sector. Therefore, DOE used manufacturer shipment data to estimate the 

distribution of pumps in use by duty point. To account for the wide range of pump duty 

points in the field, DOE placed pump models in bins with varying power capacities using 

the shipment data provided by individual manufacturers. DOE grouped all pump models

into nine power bins on a log-scale between 1 and 200 hp. Then, for each equipment 

class, DOE grouped the pump models into nine flow bins on a log-scale between 

minimum flow at BEP and maximum flow at BEP. Based on the power and flow binning 

process, DOE defined a representative unit for each of the combined power and flow 

93
bins. Within each bin, DOE defined the pump performance data (power and flow at BEP, 

pump curve and efficiency curve) as the shipment-weighted averages over all units in the 

bin. DOE used these data to calculate the annual energy use for each of the equipment 

classes.

2. Pump Sizing

In the Framework Document, DOE requested information on pump sizing. 

Grundfos noted that the general selection guidelines and other resources are available 

from HI and specific professional or trade associations such as ASHRAE.

35 (Grundfos, 

No. 24 at p. 32.) DOE reviewed relevant guidelines and resources and introduced a 

variable called the BEP offset to capture variations in pump sizing practices in the field. 

The BEP offset is essentially the relative distance between the consumer’s duty point and 

the pump’s BEP. Pumps are often sized to operate within 75 percent to 110 percent of 

their BEP flow. Therefore, for this analysis, the BEP offset is assumed to be uniformly 

distributed between -0.25 (i.e., 25% less than BEP flow) and 0.1 (10% more than BEP 

flow). 

35 ASHRAE was formerly known as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers. 

94

 
3. Operating Hours

DOE estimated average annual operating hours by application based on inputs 

from a market expert and feedback from the CIP Working Group.

36 DOE developed 

statistical distributions to use in its energy use analysis. 

DOE requests information and data on average annual operating hours for the 

pump types and applications in the scope of this rulemaking. This is identified as Issue 4

in section VIII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

4. Load Profiles

Information on typical load profiles for pumps is not available in the public 

domain. DOE requested information on load profiles in the Framework Document. 

Grundfos responded that available public data related to the use of pumps is very limited 

and provided a reference that may be considered for heating, cooling, and hot water load 

profiles: California’s 2013 Title 24 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method 

(ACM) Reference Manual, Appendix 5.4B. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 32.) Grundfos also 

noted that general selection guidelines and other resources are available from HI and 

suggested that DOE review EU Commission Regulation No 547/2012 and the work being 

considered under the Ecodesign Preparatory Study (ENER Lot 29). (Grundfos, No. 24 at 

p. 34.) HI mentioned that application-specific duty profiles could lead to confusion for 

pumps with motors and/or controls serving multiple applications and suggested that a 

36 Refer to the following transcripts in which operating hours are presented to the working group and no 

negative feedback is received: EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, pp. 353-355; EERE-2013-BT-NOC0039-XXXX0109, pp. 128-140139-152.

95

 
single duty profile, consisting of equally weighted time intervals at 100 percent, 75

percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of the BEP flow, be used to evaluate pump efficiency.

(HI, No. 25 at p. 43.) 

DOE reviewed the resources suggested by Grundfos, as well as other information 

on pump load profiles, such as building simulation files. DOE concluded, however, that

these load profiles were not sufficiently representative of the variability expected in the

field for commercial applications. In addition, DOE did not identify any similar 

information for other sectors, including the industrial, agricultural, and municipal sectors. 

However, DOE believed it would be appropriate to analyze more than one duty profile. 

Considering the range of all applications of the pump equipment classes for which DOE 

is considering standards, DOE developed four load profiles, characterized by different 

weights at 50 percent, 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 percent of the flow at the duty 

point. These load profiles represent different types of loading conditions in the field: flat 

load at BEP, flat/over-sized load weighted evenly at 50 percent and 75 percent BEP, 

variable load over-sized, and variable load under-sized. During the CIP Working Group

negotiations, DOE initially proposed that each of these load profiles would be weighted 

equally in the consumer sample. However, a stakeholder commented that pumps 

generally operated on the pump curve to the left of the BEP (i.e., pumps generally require 

less flow than that provided at BEP) as opposed to beyond the BEP. (Charles Cappellino, 

ITT, EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, p. 356.) This indicates that pumps are generally 

oversized rather than undersized. Therefore, DOE estimated that only 10 percent of 

consumers would use pumps with the variable load/undersized load profile; the 

96
remaining load profiles were estimated to apply to 30 percent of consumers each. DOE 

notes that changes in weighting across the load profiles have very little impact on energy 

use results. 

DOE requests information and data on typical load profiles for the pump types 

and applications in the scope of this rulemaking. This is identified as Issue 5 in section

VIII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

To describe a pump’s power requirements at points on the load profile away from 

the BEP, DOE used the shipment-weighted average pump curves, modeled as secondorder polynomial functions, for each of the representative units.

5. Equipment Losses

Using the duty point, load profile, and operational hours, DOE calculated the 

energy use required for the end-use (or the energy which that is converted to useful 

hydraulic horsepower). However, the total energy use by pumps also depends on pump 

losses, motor losses, and control losses. 

Pump losses account for the differences between pump shaft horsepower and 

hydraulic horsepower due to friction and other factors. DOE takes this into account using 

the efficiency information available in the manufacturer shipment data for each pump.

To describe pump efficiency at points away from the BEP, DOE calculated shipment97
weighted average efficiency curves for each representative unit, modeled as second-order 

polynomial functions. 

In the Framework Document, DOE requested information on motor losses 

Grundfos noted that existing motor efficiency standards based on prior requirements set 

by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486, Oct. 24 1992) and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140, Dec. 19, 2007) can be utilized 

as minimum efficiency levels. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 34) DOE used existing minimum 

motor efficiency standards in calculating annual energy use. 

In the Framework Document, DOE also requested information on variable 

frequency drive (VFD) efficiency. VFDs are the most common type of VSD used in the 

pump market; they automatically control the speed of a pump by adjusting frequency in 

response to system feedback. In this way, pumps can deliver the appropriate amount of 

flow required by the system with less head and power compared to reducing flow at full 

speed by closing a throttling valve. Grundfos noted that the efficiencies of a VFD vary 

by manufacturer and suggested that a sampling of these efficiencies can be obtained from 

the members of the Adjustable Speed Drive Systems group of the Industrial Automation 

section of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). (Grundfos, No.

24 at p. 34.) DOE has reviewed all available VFD efficiency information in developing 

the test procedure NOPR. However, DOE estimates that very few pump users operate 

their pumps with VFDs. (See section IV.H.1.a, the life-cycle cost analysis is not meant to 

represent national impacts, DOE’s energy use analysis assumes that all users with 

98
variable loads throttled their pumps and therefore did not include VFD efficiency. This 

assumption allows for the analysis of impacts to the largest group of customers in the 

market (i.e., those that throttle their pumps). However, DOE considered use of VFDs –

in the life-cycle cost customer subgroup and national impact analyses. (See section IV.I

and IV.H.1.a, respectively.)

As noted previously, DOE proposed in the test procedure NOPR that pumps sold 

with non-electric drivers be rated as bare pumps. Any hydraulic improvements made to 

the bare pump to comply with any applicable energy conservation standards would also 

result in energy savings if the pump is used with a non-electric driver. However, DOE 

estimated, based on information from consultants and the CIP Working Group, that only 

1-2% of pumps in scope are driven by non-electric drivers. Therefore DOE accounted 

for the energy use of all pumps as electricity use and chose not to account for fuel use in 

its analysis. 

DOE requests comment on the percentage of pumps in scope operated by each 

fuel type other than electricity (e.g., diesel, gasoline, liquid propane gas, or natural gas) 

and the efficiency or losses of each type of non-electric driver, including transmission 

losses if any, that would allow DOE to estimate the fuel use and savings of pumps sold 

with non-electric drivers. This is identified as Issue 6 in section VIII.E, “Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.” Comment [A18]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

99
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis to 

estimate the economic impacts of potential standards on individual consumers of pump

equipment. The LCC calculation considers total installed cost (equipment cost, sales 

taxes, distribution chain markups, and installation cost), operating expenses (energy, 

repair, and maintenance costs), equipment lifetime, and discount rate. DOE calculated 

the LCC for all consumers as if each would purchase a pump in the year the standard 

takes effect. DOE presumes that the purchase year for all pump equipment for purposes 

of the LCC calculation is 2020, the first full year following the expected compliance date 

of late 2019. To compute LCCs, DOE discounted future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and summed them over the lifetime of the equipment. 

DOE analyzed the effect of changes in installed costs and operating expenses by 

calculating the PBP of potential standards relative to baseline efficiency levels. The PBP 

estimates the amount of time it would take the consumer to recover the incremental 

increase in the purchase price of more-efficient equipment through lower operating costs. 

In other words, the PBP is the change in purchase price divided by the change in annual 

operating cost that results from the energy conservation standard. DOE expresses this 

period in years. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on the total installed cost and 

operating expenses. However, unlike the LCC, DOE only considers the first year’s 

operating expenses in the PBP calculation. Because the PBP does not account for 

changes in operating expense over time or the time value of money, it is also referred to 

as a simple PBP. 

100
DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are presented in the form of a spreadsheet model, 

available on DOE’s website for pumps.

37 DOE accounts for variability in energy use and 

prices, discount rates by doing individual LCC calculations for a large sample of pumps 

(10,000 for each equipment class) that are assigned different installation conditions. 

Installation conditions include consumer attributes such as sector and application, and 

usage attributes such as duty point and annual hours of operation. Each pump installation 

in the sample is equally weighted. The simple average over the sample is used to 

generate national LCC savings by efficiency level. The results of DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analysis are summarized in section V.B.1.a and described in detail in chapter 8 of the 

NOPR TSD.

1. Approach

DOE conducted the LCC analysis by developing a large sample of 10,000 pump 

installations, which represent the general population of pumps that would be affected by 

proposed energy conservation standards. Separate LCC analyses are conducted for each 

equipment class. Conceptually, the LCC distinguishes between the pump installation and 

the pump itself. The pump installation is characterized by a combination of consumer

attributes (sector, application, electricity price, discount rate) and usage attributes (duty 

point, BEP offset, load profile, annual hours of operation, mechanical lifetime) that do 

not change among the considered efficiency levels. The pump itself is the regulated 

equipment, so its efficiency and selling price change in the analysis. 

37 See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14. 

101

 
In the base case, which represents the market in the absence of new energy 

efficiency standards, DOE assigns a specific representative pump to each pump 

installation. These pumps are chosen from the set of representative units described in the 

energy use analysis. The relative weighting of different representative units in the LCC 

sample is determined based on 2012 shipments data supplied by the manufacturers. 

The base case also includes an estimate of the distribution of equipment

efficiencies. DOE developed a base-case distribution of efficiency levels for pumps

using the shipments data mentioned above. DOE assumed that this distribution would 

remain constant over time and applied the 2012 distribution in 2020. Out of this 

distribution, DOE assigns a pump efficiency based on the relative weighting of different 

efficiencies. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD contains details regarding the base case 

efficiency distribution.

At each efficiency level, the pump assigned in the base case has a PEI rating that 

either would or would not meet a standard set at that efficiency level. If the pump would 

meet the standard at a given efficiency level, the installation is left unchanged. For that 

installation, the LCC at the given TSL is the same as the LCC in the base case and the 

standard does not impact that user. If the pump would not meet the standard at a given 

efficiency level, the base case pump is replaced with a compliant unit (i.e., a redesigned 

pump) having a higher selling price and higher efficiency, and the LCC is recalculated. 

The LCC savings at that efficiency level are defined as the difference between the LCC 

102
in the base case and the LCC for the more efficient pump. The LCC is calculated for 

each pump installation at each efficiency level. 

In the engineering analysis, DOE determines the total conversion costs required to 

bring the entire population of pump models up to a given efficiency level. DOE uses 

these conversion costs to calculate the selling price of a redesigned pump within each of 

the combined power and flow bins that define a representative unit. DOE assumes that 

all consumers whose base case pump would not meet the standard at a given efficiency 

level will purchase the new redesigned pump at the new selling price, and that 

manufacturers recover the total conversion costs at each efficiency level. DOE allocates 

conversion costs to each representative unit based on the proportion of total revenues 

generated by that unit in the base case. 

DOE calculates the selling price in two stages. In the first stage, for each 

equipment class and efficiency level, DOE calculates the total revenue generated from all

failing units, adds the total conversion costs to the revenues from failing units to generate

the new revenue requirement, and defines a markup as the ratio of the new revenue 

requirement to the base case revenue from failing units. This approach ensures that (1) 

the conversion costs are recovered from the sale of redesigned units and (2) the 

conversion costs are distributed across the different representative units in proportion to 

the amount of revenue each representative unit generates in the base case. 

103
In the second stage, DOE calculates a new selling price for each redesigned 

representative unit, i.e., for each of the combined power and flow bins. In the base case, 

each bin contains a set of pumps with varying efficiencies and varying prices. However, 

all pumps that fail at an efficiency level are given the same new price. Hence, the 

markup defined in stage one of the calculation cannot be applied directly to the selling 

price of a failing unit. Instead, DOE calculates revenues associates with all failing units 

in the bin, and applies the markup to this total to get the new revenue requirement for that 

bin. Then DOE defines the new selling price as the new revenue requirement divided by

the number of failing units in the bin.

In general, the economic inputs to the LCC, (e.g., discount rate and electricity 

price) depend on the sector, while the usage criteria (e.g., hours of operation) may depend 

on the application. For the pumps analysis, DOE considered four sectors: industrial, 

commercial buildings, agricultural and municipal water utilities. DOE assigns electricity 

prices and discount rates based on the sector. DOE considered several applications, 

based on a review of available data, and determined that there is some correlation 

between application and operating hours. DOE did not find any information relating 

either the BEP offset (a pump sizing factor) or load profile to either sector or application, 

so DOE assigned these values randomly.

As noted above, DOE determines the distribution of representative units in the 

pump installation sample from the shipments data. Each representative unit can be 

104
thought of as a pump that operates at a representative duty point. To assign the consumer

attributes (sector, application etc.) to duty points, DOE reviewed several data sources to 

incorporate correlations between sector, application, equipment class and the distribution 

of duty points into the analysis. Specifically, DOE used a database of various industrial 

applications collected from several case studies and field studies, and a database on pump 

tests provided by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, to construct the distribution of 

pumps by sector, application and speed as a function of power bin and equipment class. 

DOE used these distributions to determine the relative weighting of different sectors and 

applications in the LCC sample for each equipment class.

2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs 

For each efficiency level DOE analyzed, the LCC analysis required input data for 

the total installed cost of the equipment, its operating cost, and the discount rate. Table 

IV.3 summarizes the inputs and key assumptions DOE used to calculate the consumer

economic impacts of all energy efficiency levels analyzed in this rulemaking. A more 

detailed discussion of the inputs follows. 

105
Table IV.3 Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the LCC and PBP 

Analyses

Inputs Description

Affecting Installed Costs

Equipment Price

Equipment price derived by multiplying manufacturer 

sales price or MSP (calculated in the engineering analysis) 

by distribution channel markups, as needed, plus sales tax 

from the markups analysis. 

Installation Cost Installation cost assumed to not change with efficiency 

level, and therefore is not included in this analysis.

Affecting Operating Costs

Annual Energy Use

Annual unit energy consumption for each class of 

equipment at each efficiency level estimated by sector and 

application using simulation models.

Electricity Prices

DOE developed average electricity prices and projections 

of future electricity prices based on Annual Energy 

Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014)38. 

Maintenance Cost Maintenance cost assumed to not change with efficiency 

level, and therefore is not included in this analysis.

Repair Cost Repair cost assumed to not change with efficiency level, 

and therefore is not included in this analysis.

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings

Equipment Lifetime

Pump equipment lifetimes estimated to range between 4 

and 40 years, with an average lifespan of 15 years across 

all equipment classes, based on estimates from market 

experts and input from the CIP Working Group39.

Discount Rate

Mean real discount rates for all sectors that purchase 

pumps range from 3.4 percent for municipal sector to 5.9

percent for industrial sector. 

Analysis Start Year Start year for LCC is 2020, which is the first full year 

following the estimated compliance date of late 2019. 

Analyzed Efficiency Levels

Analyzed Efficiency Levels

DOE analyzed the baseline efficiency levels and five 

higher efficiency levels for each equipment class. See the 

engineering analysis for additional details on selections of 

efficiency levels and cost.

DOE analyzed the baseline efficiency levels (reflecting the lowest efficiency 

levels currently on the market) and five higher efficiency levels for each equipment class

38 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (2014) DOE/EIA-0383(2014).

(Last Accessed August 8, 2014) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/).

39 See for example, Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0073, p. 153.

106

 
analyzed. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides additional details on the selection of 

efficiency levels and cost.

a. Equipment Prices

The price of commercial and industrial pump equipment reflects the application 

of distribution channel markups and sales tax to the manufacturer sales price (MSP), 

which is the cost established in the engineering analysis. For each equipment class, DOE 

generated MSPs for the baseline equipment and five higher equipment efficiencies in the 

engineering analysis. As described in section IV.D, DOE determined distribution 

channel costs and markups for pump equipment. 

The markup is the percentage increase in price as the pump equipment passes 

through distribution channels. As explained in section IV.D, DOE assumed that pumps

are delivered by the manufacturer through one of five distribution channels. The overall 

markups used in LCC analyses are weighted averages of all of the relevant distribution 

channel markups.

To project an equipment price trend for the NOPR, DOE derived an inflationadjusted index of the Producer Price Index for pumps and pumping equipment over the 

period 1984-2013.

40 These data show a general price index increase from 1987 through 

2009. Since 2009, there has been no clear trend in the price index. Given the relatively

slow global economic activity in 2009 through 2013, the extent to which the future trend 

40 Series ID PCU333911333911; http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

107

 
can be predicted based on the last two decades is uncertain and the observed data do not 

provide a firm basis for projecting future cost trends for pump equipment. Therefore, 

DOE used a constant price assumption as the default trend to project future pump prices 

in 2020. Thus, prices projected for the LCC and PBP analysis are equal to the 2012 

values for each efficiency level in each equipment class. Appendix 8A of the NOPR 

TSD describes the historical data that were considered. 

DOE requests comments on the most appropriate trend to use for real (inflationadjusted) pump prices. This is identified as Issue 7 in section VIII.E, “Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.”

b. Installation Costs

In the Framework Document, DOE requested information on whether installation 

costs would be expected to change with efficiency. Grundfos responded that this was not 

expected to occur for new installations, but noted that for existing installations, there may 

be additional costs to replace existing equipment with higher efficiency equipment for 

piping, electrical modifications, base and foundations, and code requirements for 

equipment rooms. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 34.) In the CIP Working Group, Grundfos 

and ITT Corporation also noted that the assumption of targeting identical flange or feet 

dimensions during redesign is reasonable, but that, as one drives to higher efficiency one 

may have to stretch the pump (i.e., change the dimensions from the base design) and 

change configurations. (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0109, pp.240-242), Grundfos 

stated that at some point within the range of efficiency levels under consideration, 

108
whether at PER 40 or 70 or some other point, the installation cost might change. In the 

absence of data to indicate at what efficiency level DOE may need to consider an 

increase in installation costs, DOE has not estimated installation costs for this analysis.

DOE requests comment on whether any of the efficiency levels considered in this NOPR 

might lead to an increase in installation costs and, if so, data regarding the magnitude of 

the increased cost for each relevant efficiency level. This is identified as Issue 8 in 

section VIII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

c. Annual Energy Use

DOE estimated the annual electricity consumed by each class of pump equipment, 

by efficiency level, based on the energy use analysis described in section IV.E and in 

chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.

d. Electricity Prices

Electricity prices are used to convert changes in the electric consumption from 

higher-efficiency equipment into energy cost savings. DOE used average national 

commercial and industrial electricity prices from the AEO 2014 reference case. DOE 

applied the commercial price to pump installations in the commercial sector and the 

industrial price to installations in the industrial, agricultural, and municipal sectors. To 

establish prices beyond 2040 (the last year in the AEO 2014 projection, DOE 

extrapolated the trend in prices from 2030 to 2040 for both the commercial and industrial 

sectors. 

109
In response to the Framework Document and during the CIP Working Group

meetings, EEI and the CA IOUs discussed consideration of reactive power prices in the 

analyses. Specifically, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider costs and value of 

power factor and reactive power.41 (CA IOUs, No. 26 at p. 4, EERE-2013-BT-NOC0039-0072, p. 341.) On the other hand, EEI stated that it may not be necessary to 

consider reactive power prices because most pumps, motors, and VSDs will not reduce 

power factors to levels that would create extra costs for consumers. (EEI, No. 31 at p. 4.) 

DOE is not considering motors or VSDs as technology options and concludes that any 

changes in pump efficiency would have very small impacts on power factor. As a result, 

DOE did not include reactive power prices in its analyses.

e. Maintenance Costs

During the CIP Working Group meetings, DOE indicated that its analysis 

assumed that maintenance costs would not change with efficiency level. (EERE-2013-

BT-NOC-0039-0073, p. 135.) DOE did not receive any negative comments on this 

assumption, so DOE has not estimated a maintenance cost for this analysis.

f. Repair Costs

DOE received information in response to the Framework Document (Grundfos, 

No. 24 at p. 35) and from the CIP Working Group that repair costs are not expected to 

change with efficiency level. Therefore, DOE has not estimated a repair cost for this 

analysis.

41 Power factor is the ratio of real power flowing to the load to the apparent power in the circuit. Reactive 

power is power that is not transferred to the load but is required for electric motors to start.

110

 
g. Equipment Lifetime

DOE defines “equipment lifetime” as the age when a given commercial or 

industrial pump is retired from service. DOE consulted with market experts to establish 

typical equipment lifetimes, which included estimates of minimum and maximum 

lifetime. Consequently, DOE developed distributions of lifetimes that vary by equipment 

class. The average across all equipment classes is 15 years. DOE also used a distribution 

of mechanical lifetime in hours to allow a negative correlation between annual operating 

hours and lifetime in years – pumps with more annual operating hours tend to have 

shorter lifetimes. In addition, based on discussions in the CIP Working Group meetings 

(see, e.g., Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0073, p. 153), DOE introduced 

lifetime variation by pump speed – pumps running faster tend to have a shorter lifetime.

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD contains a detailed discussion of equipment lifetimes. 

h. Discount Rates

The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to 

estimate their present value. The cost of capital is commonly used to estimate the present 

value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most 

companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is 

the weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. For all but the 

municipal sector, DOE uses the capital asset pricing model to calculate the equity capital 

111
component, and financial data sources, primarily the Damodaran Online website,

42 to 

calculate the cost of debt financing. DOE derived the discount rates by estimating the 

cost of capital of companies that purchase pumping equipment. 

For the municipal sector, DOE calculated the real average interest rate on state 

and local bonds over the period of 1983-2012 by adjusting the Federal Reserve Board 

nominal rates to account for inflation. This 30-year average is assumed to be 

representative of the cost of capital relevant to municipal end users over the analysis 

period.

More details regarding DOE’s estimates of consumer discount rates are provided 

in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

3. Payback Period

The PBP measures the amount of time it takes the commercial consumer to 

recover the assumed higher purchase expense of more-efficient equipment through lower 

operating costs. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on the total installed cost and the 

operating expenses for each application and sector, weighted by the probability of 

shipments to each market. Because the simple PBP does not take into account changes in 

operating expense over time or the time value of money, DOE considered only the first 

year’s operating expenses to calculate the PBP, unlike the LCC, which is calculated over 

42 Damodaran financial data used for determining cost of capital are available at: 

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ for commercial businesses (Last accessed February 12, 2014).

112

 
the lifetime of the equipment. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides additional details 

about the PBP calculation.

4. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically 

justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year that 

the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the test 

procedure in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a).) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determines the value of the first 

year’s energy savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the average energy price 

forecast for the year in which compliance with the amended standards would be required.

G. Shipments Analysis

In its shipments analysis, DOE developed shipment projections for pumps and, in 

turn, calculated equipment stock over the course of the analysis period. DOE used the 

shipments projection and the equipment stock to determine the NES. The shipments 

portion of the spreadsheet model projects pump shipments from 2020 through 2049.

In the Framework Document, DOE considered using the shipment data available 

from the U.S. Census Bureau. In response, Grundfos and HI expressed concern that the 

113
Census descriptions did not match HI nomenclature. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 20; HI, No. 

25 at p. 36.) HI further added that they did not find the Census data to be reliable (Id.) 

During the course of the CIP Working Group meetings, HI provided DOE with shipment 

estimates collected directly from its members (EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0068). 

To develop the shipments model, DOE started with the 2012 shipment estimates

by equipment type from HI. For the initial year, DOE distributed total shipments into the 

four sectors using estimates from the LCC, as discussed in section IV.F.1. To project 

shipments of pumps, DOE relied primarily on AEO 2014 forecasts of various indicators

for each sector: (1) commercial floor space; (2) value of manufacturing shipments; (3) 

value of agriculture, mining, and construction shipments; and (4) population (for the 

municipal sector). 

DOE used the 2012 total industry shipments by equipment class estimated by HI 

to distribute total shipments in each year into the five equipment types. DOE then used 

2012 shipment data collected directly from manufacturers to distribute shipments into the

further disaggregated equipment classes accounting for nominal speeds. The distribution 

of sectors changes over time as a result of each sector’s differing forecast in AEO, while 

the distribution of equipment classes remains constant over time.

DOE estimated that standards would have a negligible impact on pump 

shipments. Under most pricing scenarios, it is likely that following a standard, a 

consumer would be able to buy a more efficient pump for the same price as the less 

114
efficient pump they would have purchased before or without a standard. Therefore, 

rather than foregoing a pump purchase under a standards case, a consumer might simply 

switch brands or pumps to purchase a cheaper one that did not have to be redesigned. As 

a result, DOE used the same shipments projections in the standards case as in the base 

case. Chapter 9 of the TSD contains more details. DOE seeks comment on whether new 

standards would be likely to affect shipments. This is identified as Issue 9 under “Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR. 

H. National Impact Analysis

The national impact analysis (NIA) evaluates the effects of energy conservation 

standards from a national perspective. This analysis assesses the net present value (NPV) 

(future amounts discounted to the present) and the national energy savings (NES) of total 

commercial consumer costs and savings expected to result from new standards at specific 

efficiency levels. 

The NES refers to cumulative energy savings for the lifetime of pumps shipped 

from 2020 through 2049. DOE calculated energy savings in each year relative to a base 

case, defined by the current market. DOE calculated net monetary savings in each year 

relative to the base case as the difference between total operating cost savings and 

increases in total installed cost. DOE accounted for operating cost savings until the year

when the equipment installed in 2049 should be retired. Cumulative savings are the sum 

of the annual NPV over the specified period.

115
1. Approach

The NES and NPV are a function of the total number of units in use and their 

efficiencies. Both the NES and NPV depend on annual shipments and equipment 

lifetime. Both calculations start by using the shipments estimate and the quantity of units 

in service derived from the shipments model.

DOE used a spreadsheet tool, available on DOE’s website for pumps,

43 to 

calculate the energy savings and the national monetary costs and savings from potential 

standards. Interested parties can review DOE’s analyses by changing various input 

quantities within the spreadsheet. 

Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES spreadsheet does not use distributions for 

inputs or outputs, but relies on national average equipment costs and energy costs 

developed from the LCC analysis. DOE projected the energy savings, energy cost 

savings, equipment costs, and NPV of benefits for equipment sold in each pump class 

from 2020 through 2049. 

a. National Energy Savings

DOE calculated the NES based on the difference between the per-unit energy use 

under a standards-case scenario and the per-unit energy use in the base case. The average 

energy per unit used by the pumps in service gradually decreases in the standards case 

43 DOE’s webpage on pumps can be found at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14.

116

 
relative to the base case because more-efficient pumps are expected to gradually replace 

less-efficient ones.

Unit energy consumption values for each equipment class are taken from the LCC

spreadsheet for each efficiency level and weighted based on market efficiency 

distributions. To estimate the total energy savings for each efficiency level, DOE first 

calculated the delta unit energy consumption (i.e., the difference between the energy 

directly consumed by a unit of equipment in operation in the base case and the standards 

case) for each class of pumps for each year of the analysis period. The analysis period 

begins with the first full year following the estimated compliance date of any new energy 

conservation standards (i.e., 2020). Second, DOE determined the annual site energy 

savings by multiplying the stock of each equipment class by vintage (i.e., year of 

shipment) by the delta unit energy consumption for each vintage (from step one). Third, 

DOE converted the annual site electricity savings into the annual amount of energy saved 

at the source of electricity generation (primary energy) using a time series of conversion 

factors derived from the AEO 2014 version of EIA’s National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS). Finally, DOE summed the annual primary energy savings for the lifetime of 

units shipped over a 30-year period to calculate the total NES. DOE performed these 

calculations for each efficiency level considered for pumps in this rulemaking.

DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. On 

August 18, 2011, DOE published a final statement of policy in the Federal Register

announcing its intention to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and 

Comment [A19]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

117
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions 

analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281. 

After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published 

a statement of amended policy in the Federal Register in which DOE explained its 

determination that NEMS is the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its 

intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). Therefore, 

DOE used the NEMS model to conduct the FFC analysis. The approach used for this 

NOPR, and the FFC multipliers that were applied, are described in appendix 10B of the 

NOPR TSD.

To properly account for national impacts, DOE adjusted the energy use and 

energy costs developed from the LCC spreadsheet. Specifically, in the LCC, DOE does 

not account for pumps sold with trimmed impellers or pumps used with VSDs, both of 

which may reduce the energy savings resulting from pump efficiency improvements. 

In response to the Framework Document, HI mentioned that the penetration of 

VSDs is increasing in the market place and recommended that DOE explore the issue 

(HI, No. 25 at p. 43). DOE reviewed studies on VSD penetration and used an initial

penetration of 3.2 percent in 199844 with a 5 percent annual increase.

45 For more 

44 United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment. Tech. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), 

1998. Print.

45 Almeida, A., Chretien, B., Falkner, H., Reichert, J., West, M., Nielsen, S., and Both, D. VSDs for Electric 

Motor Systems. Tech. N.p.: European Commission Directorate-General for Transport and Energy, SAVE II 

Programme 2000, n.d. Print.

118

 
information on VSD penetration, see chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. Although these 

studies are not specific to VFDs, DOE assumed all VSD use was attributable to VFD use, 

as VFDs are the most common type of VSD in the pumps market.

46 Based on DOE’s 

analysis of VFD users in the consumer subgroup analysis (see section IV.I), DOE 

assumed VFDs would reduce energy use by 39 percent on average, which also reduces 

the potential energy savings from higher efficiency. However, DOE assumed based on 

the difficulties with VFD installation and operation,

47 that the full amount of potential 

savings would not be realized for all consumers. DOE is currently assuming an 

“effectiveness rate” of 75 percent; in other words DOE is assuming that consumers will 

achieve on average only 75 percent of the 39 percent estimated savings (i.e., 29 percent 

savings) because of improper installation, operation inconsistent with intended use, or 

other equipment problems.

In the CIP Working Group meetings, one stakeholder stated that half of pumps 

sold by manufacturers are trimmed (i.e., have impellers trimmed to meet customer needs)

(Louis Starr, EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0072, p. 345), while another stated that the vast 

majority of pumps sold by manufacturers are trimmed (Al Huber, EERE-2013-BT-NOC0039-0009, p. 168). DOE also consulted a market expert who agreed that a majority of 

pumps are trimmed, and that the average trim is between 10 to 20 percent. In the NIA, 

46 See for example: 

Energy Tips – Motor. Tech. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), 2008, Motor Tip Sheet #11,Print, p. 1.

Variable Frequency Drives. Tech. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 2000, Report #00-054, Print, 

Exhibit 2.1.

47 See for example: Variable speed drives: Introducing energy saving opportunities for business. London: 

Carbon Trust, 2011.

119

 
DOE assumed that for all equipment classes except VT-S, 50 percent of pumps not sold 

with VFDs are sold with impellers trimmed to 85 percent of full impeller. According to 

the pump affinity laws, which are a set of relationships that can be used to predict the 

performance of a pump when its speed or impeller diameter is changed, such an impeller 

trim uses 61 percent of the power of full trim. Accordingly, DOE reduced the energy use 

for those consumers by 39 percent. For the VT-S equipment class, DOE assumed that 

pumps were not sold with trimmed impellers. A large percentage of these pumps are 

pressed stainless and will never be trimmed; the remainder of these pumps will be 

significantly less likely to be trimmed than other pump types because variability in the 

number of stages would be used in place of trimming the impellers.

DOE used the penetration rate and power reduction values for VFDs and trimmed 

impellers, as well as the effectiveness rate for VFDs, to create an energy use adjustment 

factor time series in the NES spreadsheet. DOE seeks comment on the components of this 

adjustment. This matter is identified as Issue 10 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR.

DOE considered whether a rebound effect applies to pumps. A rebound effect 

occurs when an increase in equipment efficiency leads to increased demand for its 

service. For example, when a consumer realizes that a more-efficient pump used for 

cooling will lower the electricity bill, that person may opt for increased comfort in the 

building by using the equipment more, thereby negating a portion of the energy savings.

In commercial buildings, however, the person owning the equipment (i.e., the building 

120
owner) is usually not the person operating the equipment (i.e., the renter). Because the 

operator usually does not own the equipment, that person will not have the operating cost 

information necessary to influence their operation of the equipment. Therefore, DOE 

believes that a rebound effect is unlikely to occur in commercial buildings. In the 

industrial and agricultural sectors, DOE believes that pumps are likely to be operated 

whenever needed for the required process or irrigation demand, so a rebound effect is 

also unlikely to occur in the industrial and agricultural sectors. DOE seeks comment on 

whether a rebound effect should be included in the determination of annual energy 

savings. If a rebound effect should be included, DOE seeks data to assist in calculating

the rebound effect. This matter is identified as Issue 11 under “Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR. 

DOE also considered whether there would be any spill-over effects related to an 

energy conservation standard for clean water pumps. Specifically, in the Framework 

Document, DOE requested information on whether design changes to clean water pumps 

would also be reflected in the design of pumps used in other processes and applications, 

thus saving additional energy not accounted for in the analysis of clean water pumps 

only. In response, Grundfos expected that design changes to clean water pumps would 

spill over, while HI believed that spillover was possible for a small number of design 

changes by pump manufacturers with modular designs. Grundfos and HI noted, 

however, that designs in alternate applications are very dependent on requirements for 

safety and reliability. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 4; HI No. 25 at p. 14.) Because DOE did 

121
not obtain any data indicating how much spillover might occur, DOE has not accounted 

for spillover effects in the NOPR analysis.

b. Net Present Value

To estimate the NPV, DOE calculated the net impact as the difference between 

total operating cost savings and increases in total installed costs. DOE calculated the 

NPV of each considered standard level over the life of the equipment using the following 

three steps. 

First, DOE determined the difference between the equipment costs under the 

standard-level case and the base case to obtain the net equipment cost increase resulting 

from the higher standard level. As noted in section IV.F.2.a, DOE used a constant price 

assumption as the default price forecast. In addition, DOE considered two alternative 

price trends to investigate the sensitivity of the results to different assumptions regarding 

equipment price trends. One of these used an exponential fit on the deflated Producer 

Price Index (PPI) for pump and puming equipment manufacturing, and the other is based 

on the “deflator – industrial equipment” forecast for AEO 2014. The derivation of these 

price trends is described in appendix 10B of the NOPR TSD.

Second, DOE determined the difference between the base-case operating costs 

and the standard-level operating costs to obtain the net operating cost savings from each 

higher efficiency level. 

122
Third, DOE determined the difference between the net operating cost savings and 

the net equipment cost increase to obtain the net savings (or expense) for each year. 

DOE then discounted the annual net savings (or expenses) to 2015 and summed the 

discounted values to provide the NPV for a standard at each efficiency level. 

In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) guidelines 

on regulatory analysis,48 DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real 

discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on 

private capital in the U.S. economy. DOE used this discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private sector, because recent OMB analysis has found 

the average rate of return on capital to be near this rate. DOE used the 3-percent rate to 

capture the potential effects of standards on private consumption (e.g., through higher 

prices for equipment and reduced purchases of energy). This rate represents the rate at 

which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value. This rate can be 

approximated by the real rate of return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on 

United States Treasury notes minus annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index), 

which has averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the past 30 years.

2. Base-Case and Standards-Case Distribution of Efficiencies

As described in section IV.F.1, DOE developed a base-case distribution of 

efficiency levels for pumps using performance data provided by manufacturers. Because 

48 OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.) 

123

 
the available evidence suggests that there is no trend toward greater interest in higher 

pump efficiency, DOE assumed that the base case distribution would remain constant 

over time. The base-case efficiency distributions for each equipment class are presented 

in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. Furthermore, DOE has no reason to believe that 

implementation of standards would lead to an increased demand for more efficient 

equipment than the minimum available, and therefore does not use an efficiency trend in 

the standards-case scenarios.

For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the 

market shares by efficiency level for the year that compliance would be required with 

new standards (i.e., 2020). DOE concludes that equipment efficiencies in the base case

that were above the standard level under consideration would not be affected. 

Information from certain manufacturers indicates that for pumps not meeting a potential 

standard at some of the lower efficiency levels, redesign would likely target an efficiency 

level higher than the minimum given the level of investment required for a redesign, and 

the relatively more modest change in investment to design a given pump to a higher level

once redesign is already taking place. However, DOE has no data that clearly indicate 

what percentage of failing pumps would likely be redesigned to a level higher than the 

minimum, or how high that level would be. In the absence of such data, DOE does not 

assume that manufacturers would design to a level higher than required, to avoid 

overestimating the energy savings that would result from the rule. 

124
In response to the Framework Document, EEI commented that the federal 

regulations on motor efficiency and the requirements in the most recent building codes 

should be considered in the energy efficiency base case in the analyses. (EEI, No. 31 at 

p. 2.) DOE notes that its analysis incorporates the federal motor efficiency standards in 

its analysis but does not consider the use of motors more efficient than those standards. 

DOE also reviewed the relevant building codes and found that they do not place any 

requirements on pump efficiency. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

In the Framework Document, DOE requested input on any consumer subgroups 

that should be analyzed separately. Grundfos suggested that consumer subgroups should

include commercial buildings, water utilities, and irrigation. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 36.)

While DOE is not analyzing these different groups as part of its consumer subgroup 

analysis, it has considered these groups as part of the LCC analysis.

For the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impacts of the TSLs on 

the subgroup of consumers who operate their pumps with VFDs.

49 DOE analyzed this 

subgroup because the lower power typically drawn by operating pumps at reduced speed 

may reduce the energy and operating cost savings to the consumer that would result from 

improved efficiency of the pump itself. DOE estimated the average LCC savings and 

49 In this analysis, DOE is not counting energy savings of switching from throttling a pump to using a VFD, 

as this is not a design option. DOE is simply analyzing the life-cycle costs of customers that use VFDs 

with their pumps.

125

 
simple PBP for the subgroup compared with the results from the full sample of pump

consumers, which did not account for VFD use.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

DOE performed a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the financial 

impact of energy conservation standards on manufacturers of pumps and to calculate the 

potential impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. 

The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative portion 

of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an 

industry cash-flow model customized for this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are data 

on the industry cost structure, equipment costs, shipments, markups, and conversion 

expenditures. The key output is the industry net present value (INPV). Different sets of 

assumptions will produce different results. The qualitative portion of the MIA addresses 

factors such as equipment characteristics, as well as industry and market trends. Chapter 

12 of the NOPR TSD describes the complete MIA.

DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 of the 

MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the pumps industry that includes a top-down cost 

analysis of manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the 

GRIM (e.g., sales, general, and administration (SG&A) expenses; research and 

development (R&D) expenses; and tax rates). DOE used public sources of information, 

126
including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K filings50; corporate 

annual reports; the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Manufacturers51; and 

Hoovers reports.52

In phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared an industry cash-flow analysis to quantify 

the potential impacts of an energy conservation standard. In general, new or amended

energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: 

(1) create a need for increased investment; (2) raise production costs per unit; and (3) 

alter revenue due to higher per-unit prices and possible changes in sales volumes. 

In phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted detailed interviews with a representative 

cross-section of manufacturers. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics to validate assumptions used in the 

GRIM and to identify key issues or concerns. See section IV.I.3 for a description of the 

key issues manufacturers raised during the interviews.

Additionally, in phase 3, DOE evaluates subgroups of manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by standards or that may not be accurately represented by the 

average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash-flow analysis. For example, 

small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that 

50 Filings & Forms, Securities and Exchange Commission (2013) (Available at: 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml) (Last accessed July 2013). 51 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufacturers: General Statistics: Statistics for Industry Groups 

and Industries (2010) (Available at: <http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html>) (Last 

accessed July, 2013). 

52 Hoovers | Company Information | Industry Information | Lists, D&B (2013) (Available at: 

http://www.hoovers.com/) (Last accessed July 2013).

127

 
largely differs from the industry average could be more negatively affected. For today’s 

NOPR, DOE analyzed small manufacturers as a subgroup. 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business under North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 333911, “Pump and Pumping 

Equipment Manufacturing,” as one having no more than 500 employees. During its 

research, DOE identified 25 domestic companies that manufacture equipment covered by 

this rulemaking and qualify as small businesses under the SBA definition. Consistent 

with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, DOE’s analysis of the small 

business subgroup is discussed in section VII.B of today’s notice and chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

2. GRIM Analysis

As discussed previously, DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash 

flow that result in a higher or lower industry value due to energy conservation standards. 

The GRIM analysis uses a discounted cash-flow methodology that incorporates 

manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. 

The GRIM models changes in MPCs, distributions of shipments, investments, and 

manufacturer margins that could result from new energy conservation standards. The 

GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning in 

2015 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing to 2049. DOE calculated INPVs by 

summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period. DOE applied a 

128
discount rate of 11.8 percent, derived from industry financials and then modified 

according to feedback received during manufacturer interviews. 

In the GRIM, DOE calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the base case and each TSL (the standards case).

The difference in INPV between the base case and a standards case represents the 

financial impact of the energy conservation standard on manufacturers. Additional 

details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

a. GRIM Key Inputs

Manufacturer Production Costs

Manufacturer production costs (MPCs) are the cost to the manufacturer to 

produce a covered pump. The cost includes raw materials and purchased components, 

production labor, factory overhead, and production equipment depreciation. The 

changes, if any, in the MPC of the analyzed products can affect revenues, gross margins, 

and cash flow of the industry. In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs for each efficiency level 

calculated in the engineering analysis, as described in section IV.C.5 and further detailed 

in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. In addition, DOE used information from manufacturer 

interviews to disaggregate the MPCs into material, labor, and overhead costs. 

129
Shipments Forecast

The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of shipments by equipment class. For the base-case 

analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA base-case shipments forecasts from 2015 (the base year 

for the MIA analysis) to 2049 (the last year of the analysis period). In the shipments 

analysis, DOE estimates the distribution of efficiencies in the base case for all equipment 

classes. See section IV.G for additional details.

For the standards-case shipment forecast, the GRIM uses the NIA standards-case 

shipment forecasts. The NIA assumes that equipment efficiencies in the base case that do 

not meet the energy conservation standard in the standards case “roll up” to meet the 

standard after the compliance date. See section IV.G for additional details.

Product and Capital Conversion Costs

Energy conservation standards can cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs 

to make necessary changes to their production facilities and bring product designs into 

compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related expenditures that would be 

needed to comply with each considered efficiency level in each equipment class. For the 

purpose of the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) 

product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, testing, and marketing, focused on making product 

designs comply with the energy conservation standard. Capital conversion costs are 

130
investments in property, plant, and equipment to adapt or change existing production 

facilities so that compliant equipment designs can be fabricated and assembled.

To evaluate the magnitude of the product and capital conversion costs the pump 

industry would incur to comply with new energy conservation standards, DOE used a 

bottom-up approach. For this approach, DOE first determined the industry-average cost, 

per model, to redesign pumps of varying sizes to meet each of the proposed efficiency 

levels. DOE then modeled the distribution of unique pump models that would require 

redesign at each efficiency level. For each efficiency level, DOE multiplied each unique 

failing model by its associated cost to redesign it to comply with the applicable efficiency 

level and summed the total to reach an estimate of the total product and capital 

conversion cost for the industry. A more detailed description of this methodology can be 

found in engineering section IV.C.6. 

In general, DOE assumes that all conversion-related investments occur between 

the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply 

with the standard. The investment figures used in the GRIM can be found in section 

V.B.2 of today’s notice. For additional information on the estimated product conversion 

and capital conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

131
b. GRIM Scenarios

Markup Scenarios

As discussed above, MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e.,

labor, material, and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs), all non-production costs (i.e.,

SG&A, R&D, and interest), and profit. To account for manufacturers’ non-production 

costs and profit margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 

markup) to the full MPC. The resulting MSP is the price at which the manufacturer can 

recover all production and non-production costs and earn a profit. Modifying these 

markups in the standards case yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers. 

To meet new energy conservation standards, manufacturers must often invest in 

design changes that result in changes to equipment design and production lines, which

can result in changes to MPC and changes to working capital, as well as change to capital 

expenditures. Depending on the competitive pressures, some or all of the increased costs 

may be passed from manufacturers to the manufacturers’ first consumer (typically a 

distributor) and eventually to consumers in the form of higher purchase prices. The MSP 

should be high enough to recover the full cost of the produced equipment (i.e., full

production and non-production costs) and yield a profit. The manufacturer markup 

impacts profitability. A high markup under a standards scenario suggests manufacturers 

can readily pass along increases in variable costs and some of the capital and product 

conversion costs (the one-time expenditures) to consumers. A low markup suggests that 

manufacturers will not be able to recover as much of the necessary investment in plant 

and equipment.

132
DOE developed initial estimates of the base case average manufacturer markup 

through an examination of corporate annual reports and Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) 10-K reports. Furthermore, DOE refined the estimates of 

manufacturer markup by equipment class based on feedback received from manufacturers 

and information received from HI.

For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards case markup scenarios to represent the 

uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 

following the implementation of new energy conservation standards: (1) a flat markup 

scenario; and (2) a cost recovery markup scenario. These scenarios lead to different 

markup values that, when applied to the MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow 

impacts. DOE used these values to represent the lower and upper bounds of potential 

markups for manufacturers.

Under the flat markup scenario, DOE maintains the same markup in the base case 

and standards case. This results in no price changes at a given efficiency level for the 

manufacturer’s first consumer. Based on the MSP, component cost, performance, and 

efficiency data supplied by both individual manufacturers and HI, DOE concluded the 

non-production cost markup (which includes SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, interest, 

and profit) to vary by efficiency level. DOE calculated the flat markups as follows:

133
Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

ESCC 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39

ESFM 1.33 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.39 1.39

IL 1.43 1.46 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47

VT-S 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40

Because this markup scenario assumes that manufacturers would not increase 

their pricing for a given efficiency level as a result of a standard even as they incur 

conversion costs, this markup scenario is considered a lower bound.

In the cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturer markups are set so that 

manufacturers recover their conversion costs, which are investments necessary to comply 

with the new energy conservation standard, over the analysis period. That cost recovery 

is enabled by an increase in mark-up, which results in higher manufacturer sales prices 

for pumps even as manufacturer product costs stay the same. The cost recovery 

calculation assumes manufacturers raise prices only on models where a redesign is 

necessitated by the standard. The additional revenue due to the increase in markup 

results in manufacturers recovering 100% of their conversion costs over the 30-year 

analysis period, taking into account the time-value of money. DOE calculated the cost 

recovery markups are calculated as follows:

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

ESCC 1.37 1.57 1.68 1.74 1.92 2.13

ESFM 1.33 1.45 1.51 1.54 1.61 1.70

IL 1.43 1.53 1.62 1.73 1.88 2.02

VT-S 1.37 1.49 1.47 1.54 1.65 1.77

134
Because this markup scenario models the maximum level to which manufacturers 

would increase their pricing as a result of the given standard, this markup scenario is 

considered an upper bound to markups.

Depending on the equipment class and the standard level being analyzed, the costrecovery markup results in a simple payback period of 7 to 8 years for the industry. This 

means the total additional revenues due to a higher markup equal the industry conversion 

cost within seven to eight years, not taking into account the time value of money. The 

simple payback period varies at each TSL due to differences in the number of models 

requiring redesign, the total conversion costs, and the number of unit over which costs 

can be recouped. The simple payback timeframes are as follows:

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Years 0 8 7 7 7 7

The payback period is greatest at TSL 1 due to the relatively high numbers of models 

that require redesign as compared to the number of units sold at that level.

3. Manufacturer Interviews

As part of the MIA, DOE discussed potential impacts of standards with ten pump 

manufacturers. The interviewed manufacturers account for approximately 40 percent of 

the domestic pump market. In interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their 

major concerns about this rulemaking. This section (IV.J.3) highlights manufacturers’ 

135
interview statements that helped shaped DOE’s understanding of the potential impacts of 

an energy conservation standard on the industry. 

a. Alignment with European Union Energy Efficiency Standards

Multiple manufacturers emphasized the importance of harmonizing U.S. energy 

conservation standards with existing EU standards for clean water pumps. Manufacturers 

stated that harmonized standards would promote regulatory consistency and would enable 

them to better coordinate product redesigns and reduce conversion costs. If U.S. and EU 

standards are not harmonized, some manufacturers noted they would have to carry a 

greater number of product lines to service separate markets or to comply with efficiency 

standards in both domestic and European markets. Manufacturers also indicated that 

harmonized standards could help to improve U.S. manufacturers’ access to foreign 

markets and would help to avoid a situation where lower domestic standards enable EUcompliant manufacturers to market their pumps to U.S. consumers as more efficient than 

pumps manufactured domestically. Manufacturers noted that expansion beyond the EU 

Directive parameters will add complexity and cost to the tasks of the manufacturers and 

create a significant financial burden for manufacturers to comply with the standards, 

particularly with respect to double-suction pumps and vertical turbines beyond 6-inch 

bowl assemblies. See Section III.A.1.

In contrast, one manufacturer stated that aligning U.S. standards with EU 

standards would give European manufacturers an advantage because they would have 

136
products that could immediately comply with the U.S. standard, while U.S.

manufacturers would have conversion costs to achieve the new efficiency level.

b. Pattern Production and Engineering Constraints

Many manufacturers raised concerns regarding potential tooling bottlenecks. In 

general, much of the industry relies on the same resources for patterns used to produce 

the impeller and bowl. Manufacturers were concerned there would not be enough pattern 

production capacity available if the entire industry attempted to redesign products within 

the same three to five year timeframe. Furthermore, manufacturers expressed concern 

surrounding insufficient availability of engineering resources (mainly design engineers) 

required to redesign a high volume of pump lines during a short time period. 

Manufacturers stated that limited pump design expertise in the industry could create time 

delays in complying with new standards. 

c. Conversion Requirements

Manufacturers raised concerns over potentially significant barriers to achieving 

compliance with new standards, particularly at higher efficiency levels. If U.S. standards 

exceeded levels comparable to an EU minimum efficiency index (MEI)53 of 0.4, several 

manufacturers indicated they would have to develop entirely new product platforms at 

significant cost. At an MEI of 0.7, many indicated they would close manufacturing 

facilities rather than upgrade them to comply with any efficiency standards. 

53 The EU sets efficiency standards based on desired percentages of the market to cut off, which it refers to 

as minimum efficiency indexes, or MEIs. A MEI of 0.4, for example, indicates an efficiency standard 

designed to eliminate the least efficient 40 percent of products from the market. 

137

 
Additionally, manufacturers suggested that conversion requirements would likely 

accelerate trends toward industry consolidation, as smaller manufacturers elect to exit the 

market rather than invest in product redesigns. 

d. Exclusion of Specific Pump Types

Manufacturers expressed concern over which pumps would be included in the 

rulemaking; two of these manufacturers raised concerns specifically with the prospect of 

regulating circulator pumps (i.e., small pumps that circulate liquid in water heating or 

hydronic space conditioning systems in buildings). Manufacturers stated that compared 

to the European market, the U.S. market for circulator pumps is very small and would not 

present a large opportunity to save energy. Manufacturers also stated that the investment 

required by U.S. circulator pump manufacturers will be too high relative to the return on 

investment. They also mentioned that in most situations, due to the higher cost of highefficiency equipment and the relatively low cost of energy in the U.S., consumers would 

not see a return on investment for a long period of time.

K. Emissions Analysis

In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power sector emissions 

of CO2, NOX, SO2, Hg, CH4, and N2O from new energy conservation standards for the 

considered pump equipment. In addition, DOE estimated emissions impacts in 

production activities (extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide the 

energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as “upstream” emissions. Together, 

these emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle (FFC). In accordance with DOE’s FFC 

138
Statement of Policy (76 FR 51281, August 18, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 49701, Aug. 

17, 2012), this FFC analysis includes impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous 

oxide (N2O), both of which are recognized as greenhouse gases. 

DOE primarily conducted the emissions analysis using emissions factors for CO2

and most of the other gases derived from data in AEO 2014. Combustion emissions of 

CH4 and N2O were estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its GHG Emissions Factors Hub.

54 

DOE developed separate emissions factors for power sector emissions and upstream 

emissions. The method that DOE used to derive emissions factors is described in chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD.

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions reduction in tons and also in terms 

of units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq by 

multiplying the physical units by the gas's global warming potential (GWP) over a 100-

year time horizon. Based on the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change,55 DOE used GWP values of 28 for CH4 and 265 for N2O.

EIA prepares the Annual Energy Outlook using NEMS. Each annual version of 

NEMS incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. 

54 See: http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 55 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Chapter 8.

139

 
AEO 2014 generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations, 

including recent Government actions, for which implementing regulations were available 

as of October 31, 2013.

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act 

sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 

the District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern States and D.C. were 

also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005), 

which created an allowance-based trading program that operates along with the Title IV 

program. CAIR was remanded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but it remained in effect. 

See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In 2011, EPA issued a replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. On August 21, 2012, the 

D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.56 The court ordered EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. The emissions factors used for today’s NOPR, which are based on

AEO 2014, assume that CAIR remains a binding regulation through 2040.

57

56 See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

57 On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the 

case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The Supreme Court held in part 

that EPA's methodology for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated in certain States due to their 

impacts in other downwind States was based on a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the 

Clean Air Act provision that provides statutory authority for CSAPR. See EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, No 12-1182, slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). Because DOE is using emissions factors 

based on AEO 2014 for today's NOPR, the analysis assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in 

force. The difference between CAIR and CSAPR is not relevant for the purpose of DOE's analysis of SO2

emissions.

140

 
The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing 

EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand caused by the adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, 

DOE recognized that there was uncertainty about the effects of efficiency standards on 

SO2 emissions covered by the existing cap-and-trade system, but it concluded that 

negligible reductions in power sector SO2 emissions would occur as a result of standards. 

Beginning around 2016, however, SO2 emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304, Feb. 16, 

2012. In the final MATS rule, EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a 

surrogate for acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also established a standard for 

SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas 

HAP. The same controls are used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2

emissions will be reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on coal-fired 

power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes 

that, in order to continue operating, coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization 

or dry sorbent injection systems installed by 2016. Both technologies, which are used to 

reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, emissions will 

be far below the cap that would be established by CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed or 

141
used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. Therefore, 

DOE believes that energy efficiency standards will reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and 

beyond.

CAIR established a cap on NOx emissions in 28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia.58 Energy conservation standards are expected to have little effect on NOx

emissions in those States covered by CAIR because excess NOx emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases 

in NOx emissions. However, standards would be expected to reduce NOx emissions in 

the States not affected by the caps, so DOE estimated NOx emissions reductions from the 

standards considered in today’s NOPR for these States.

The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include 

emissions caps, and as such, DOE’s energy conservation standards would likely reduce 

Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors

based on AEO 2014, which incorporates MATS. 

In response to the Framework Document, EEI noted that EPA projects significant 

reductions in particulate emissions from electric generating units as a result of MATS 

compliance. (EEI, No.31 at p.4.) EEI also believed that DOE should incorporate the 

most recent AEO and EPA's most recent analyses in the emissions analysis. Power sector 

58 CSAPR also applies to NOx and it would supersede the regulation of NOx under CAIR. As stated 

previously, the current analysis assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The difference 

between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to DOE's analysis of NOX emissions is slight.

142

 
emissions of criteria air pollutants have dropped dramatically. (EEI, No. 31 at p. 4.) As 

discussed above, the AEO 2014 projections that serve as a reference case for measuring 

the impacts of potential standards account for the MATS and other emissions rules for 

which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013.

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

As part of the development of this NOPR, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that are expected to result 

from each of the considered efficiency levels. To make this calculation similar to the 

calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of equipment shipped in the forecast period for each 

efficiency level. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for CO2

and NOX emissions and presents the values considered in this rulemaking.

For today’s NOPR, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social cost of carbon 

(SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis for those 

values is provided in the following subsection, and a more detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental 

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited 

to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from 

143
increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are 

provided in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC value is meant to 

reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit change in carbon 

dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide.

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and 

Review,” 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993, agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, 

assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that 

some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the 

monetized social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 

regulatory actions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they should be updated over 

time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.

As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, 

explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values 

using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and 

144
economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently 

and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide 

emissions, the analyst faces a number of challenges. A recent report from the National 

Research Council points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information about: (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases; (2) 

the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system; (3) the impact of changes 

in climate on the physical and biological environment; and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and 

monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.

Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be 

useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The agency 

can estimate the benefits from reduced emissions in any future year by multiplying the 

change in emissions in that year by the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be calculated by multiplying the future benefits by 

an appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. 

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change 

145
and its impacts on society improves over time. In the meantime, the interagency group 

will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments 

as part of the ongoing interagency process.

e. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values

In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of 

how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure 

consistency in how benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking 

process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The

interagency group did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC 

estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the preliminary assessment by the 

interagency group was a set of five interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 

2006$) of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These interim values 

represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. government to develop

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were 

presented in several proposed and final rules.

f. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

After the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. The 

146
interagency group relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to 

estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently 

cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each model was given equal weight in the 

SCC values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency 

process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the 

different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An 

extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 

for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and 

discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input 

into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 

socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model 

features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments.

The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth 

set, which represents the 95th-percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-

percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate 

147
change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values grow in real terms over 

time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 

percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic 

effects, although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions. Table IV.4 presents the values in the 2010 interagency group report,59

which is reproduced in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD.

Table IV.4 Annual SCC Values from 2010 Interagency Report, 2010–2050 (in 2007 

dollars per metric ton CO2)

Year

Discount Rate %

5 3 2.5 3

Average Average Average 95th Percentile

2010 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9

2015 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8

2020 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7

2025 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4

2030 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0

2035 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7

2040 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3

2045 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8

2050 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2

The SCC values used for today’s notice were generated using the most recent 

versions of the three integrated assessment models that have been published in the peer59 Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf).

148

 
reviewed literature.60 (See appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD for further information.) 

Table IV.5 shows the updated sets of SCC estimates in five year increments from 2010 to 

2050. Appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD provides the full set of SCC estimates. The 

central value that emerges is the average SCC across models at the 3 percent discount 

rate. However, for purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact 

analysis, the interagency group emphasizes the importance of including all four sets of 

SCC values.

Table IV.5 Annual SCC Values from 2013 Interagency Update, 2010–2050 (in 2007 

dollars per metric ton CO2)

Year

Discount Rate %

5 3 2.5 3

Average Average Average 95th Percentile

2010 11 32 51 89

2015 11 37 57 109

2020 12 43 64 128

2025 14 47 69 143

2030 16 52 75 159

2035 19 56 80 175

2040 21 61 86 191

2045 24 66 92 206

2050 26 71 97 220

It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that 

current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will 

60 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 2013; 

revised November 2013) (Available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbonfor-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf).

149

 
evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group 

also recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National 

Research Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton 

of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of 

analytical challenges that are being addressed by the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. The interagency group intends to periodically 

review and reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling.

In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced 

CO2 emissions, DOE used the values from the 2013 interagency report, adjusted to 2013$ 

using the Gross Domestic Product price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the 

values used for emissions in 2015 were $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton 

avoided (values expressed in 2013$). DOE derived values after 2050 using the relevant 

growth rates for the 2040-2050 period in the interagency update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SCC 

value for that year in each of the four cases. To calculate a present value of the stream of 

monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

150
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

As noted above, DOE has taken into account how new energy conservation 

standards would reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States not affected by emissions caps.

DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of 

the TSLs considered for today’s NOPR based on estimates found in the relevant scientific 

literature. Estimates of monetary value for reducing NOx from stationary sources range 

from $476 to $4,893 per ton (2013$).61 DOE calculated monetary benefits using a 

medium value for NOX emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in 2013$), and real discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.

DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg emissions in 

energy conservation standards rulemakings. It has not included such monetization in the 

current analysis.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the adoption of new or amended energy conservation 

standards. In the utility impact analysis, DOE analyzes the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation that would result for each trial standard level. The analysis is 

based on published output from NEMS, which is a public domain, multi-sectored, partial 

61 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to 

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and 

Tribal Entities, Washington, DC. Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf.

151

 
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. Each year, NEMS is updated to produce the 

AEO reference case as well as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide 

impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. DOE uses those published side cases 

that incorporate efficiency-related policies to estimate the marginal impacts of reduced 

energy demand on the utility sector. The output of this analysis is a set of timedependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 

consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in 

demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of new or 

amended energy conservation standards. Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD describes the 

utility impact analysis in further detail.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

Employment impacts include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment 

impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the equipment

subject to standards; the MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are 

changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and operation of more-efficient equipment. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards consist of the jobs created or eliminated in the 

national economy due to: (1) reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased consumer spending 

on the purchase of new products; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the 

economy. 

152
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the 

Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its 

estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 

sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this 

same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector 

generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other 

sectors of the economy.62 There are many reasons for these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less laborintensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing 

consumer utility bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency 

standards is to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility 

sector) to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based 

on the BLS data, net national employment may increase because of shifts in economic 

activity resulting from new energy conservation standards for pumps.

For the standard levels considered in today’s NOPR, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called 

62 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II),” U.S. Department of Commerce (1992).

153

 
Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET).63 ImSET is a specialpurpose version of the “U.S. Benchmark National Input-Output” (I–O) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 

technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I–O model having 

structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among the 187 sectors. ImSET’s 

national economic I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. benchmark table, specially 

aggregated to the 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 

building energy use. DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 

model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may overestimate actual job impacts over the long run. For the NOPR, DOE used ImSET only to 

estimate short-term (through 2024) employment impacts.

For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR 

TSD.

63 M. J. Scott, O. V. Livingston, P. J. Balducci, J. M. Roop, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL-18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2009) (Available at: 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf).

154

 
V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation Process and Criteria

DOE developed six efficiency levels, including a baseline level, for each

equipment class analyzed in the LCC, NIA, and MIA. TSL 5 was selected at the maxtech level for these equipment classes, and also represented the highest energy savings, 

NPV, and net benefit to the nation scenario. TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 3, and TSL 4 were 

selected to provide intermediate efficiency levels between the baseline efficiency level 

and TSL 5 and allow for an evaluation of manufacturer impact at each level. As 

discussed in section IV.A.2.a, for the RS-V equipment classes, DOE proposed to set the 

baseline and max-tech levels equal to those established in Europe, but was unable to 

develop intermediate efficiency levels or TSLs due to lack of available cost data for this 

equipment. As a result, the baseline efficiency level has been specified for all TSLs 1 

through 4, with the max-tech level being specified for TSL 5. Table V.1 shows the 

mapping between TSLs and efficiency levels for all equipment classes.

Table V.1 Mapping Between TSLs and Efficiency Levels

Equipment Class Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

ESCC.1800 EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

ESCC.3600 EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

ESFM.1800 EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

ESFM.3600 EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

IL.1800 EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

IL.3600 EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

RS-V.1800* EL 0 EL 0 EL 0 EL 0 EL 0 EL 5

RS-V.3600* EL 0 EL 0 EL 0 EL 0 EL 0 EL 5

VT-S.1800* EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

VT-S.3600 EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5

*Equipment classes not analyzed due to lack of available data (in the case of RS-V) or lack of market share 

(in the case of VT-S.1800).

Comment [A20]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

155
2. Trial Standard Level Equations

Because the chosen efficiency metric, PEI, is a normalized metric targeted to 

create a standard level of 1.00, DOE has expressed its efficiency levels in terms of Cvalues. Each C-value represents a normalized efficiency for all size pumps, across the 

entire equipment class. (See section III.D.1 for more information about C-values and the 

related equations.) Table V.2 shows the appropriate C-values for each equipment class, 

at each TSL.

Table V.2 C-values at Each TSL

Equipment Class Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

ESCC.1800 134.43 131.63 128.47 126.67 125.07 123.71

ESCC.3600 135.94 134.60 130.42 128.92 127.35 125.29

ESFM.1800 134.99 132.95 128.85 127.04 125.12 123.71

ESFM.3600 136.59 134.98 130.99 129.26 127.77 126.07

IL.1800 135.92 133.95 129.30 127.30 126.00 124.45

IL.3600 141.01 138.86 133.84 131.04 129.38 127.35

RS-V.1800* 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.63

RS-V.3600* 133.20 133.20 133.20 133.20 133.20 133.20

VT-S.1800* 137.62 135.93 134.13 130.83 128.92 127.29

VT-S.3600 137.62 135.93 134.13 130.83 128.92 127.29

*Equipment classes not analyzed due to lack of available data (in the case of RS-V) or lack of market share 

(in the case of VT-S.1800).

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Consumers

DOE analyzed the economic impacts on pump consumers by looking at the 

effects potential standards would have on the LCC and PBP, when compared to the base 

case described in section IV.F.1. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards 

on consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed below.

Comment [A21]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

156
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

In general, higher-efficiency equipment would affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

purchase price would increase over the price of less efficient equipment currently in the 

market, and (2) annual operating costs would decrease as a result of increased energy 

savings. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (i.e.,

equipment price plus installation costs), and operating costs (i.e., annual energy savings, 

energy prices, energy price trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses equipment lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.

Table V.3 through Table V.16 show the LCC and PBP results for all efficiency 

levels considered for all analyzed equipment classes. The average costs at each TSL are 

calculated considering the full sample of consumers that have levels of efficiency in the 

base case equal to or above the given TSL (who are not affected by a standard at that 

TSL), as well as consumers who had non-compliant pumps in the base case and purchase 

more expensive and efficient redesigned pumps in the standards case. The simple 

payback and LCC savings are measured relative to the base-case efficiency distribution in 

the compliance year (see section IV.F.1 for a description of the base case).

Comment [A22]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

Comment [A23]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

157
Table V.3 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for ESCC.1800

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years

Average 

Lifetime

years Installed 

Cost

First Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

-- Base Case $1,639 $2,271 $17,546 $19,185 -- 13

1 1 $1,672 $2,261 $17,470 $19,142 3.3 13

2 2 $1,704 $2,240 $17,317 $19,021 2.2 13

3 3 $1,768 $2,222 $17,177 $18,945 2.6 13

4 4 $1,863 $2,198 $16,997 $18,861 3.1 13

5 5 $2,026 $2,172 $16,796 $18,822 3.9 13

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the base case. 

Table V.4 LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution for 

ESCC.1800

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 12% $43

2 2 11% $164

3 3 23% $240

4 4 30% $324

5 5 42% $362

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact).

158
Table V.5 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for ESCC.3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years

Average 

Lifetime

years Installed 

Cost

First Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

-- Base Case $1,092 $1,592 $9,823 $10,915 -- 11

1 1 $1,098 $1,588 $9,800 $10,898 1.4 11

2 2 $1,111 $1,574 $9,713 $10,823 1.0 11

3 3 $1,141 $1,565 $9,653 $10,794 1.8 11

4 4 $1,170 $1,551 $9,566 $10,736 1.9 11

5 5 $1,215 $1,528 $9,422 $10,638 1.9 11

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the base case.

Table V.6 LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution for 

ESCC.3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 0.7% $17

2 2 1.8% $92

3 3 14% $122

4 4 14% $180

5 5 12% $278

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact).

159
Table V.7 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for ESFM.1800

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years

Average 

Lifetime

years Installed 

Cost

First Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

-- Base Case $1,891 $3,424 $40,983 $42,874 -- 23

1 1 $1,893 $3,423 $40,973 $42,866 2.4 23

2 2 $1,943 $3,406 $40,759 $42,701 2.8 23

3 3 $2,004 $3,384 $40,498 $42,502 2.8 23

4 4 $2,151 $3,342 $39,988 $42,139 3.1 23

5 5 $2,314 $3,301 $39,498 $41,812 3.4 23

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the base case.

Table V.8 LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution for 

ESFM.1800

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 0.26% $8.0

2 2 6.5% $173

3 3 15% $372

4 4 24% $735

5 5 26% $1,062

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact).

160
Table V.9 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for ESFM 3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years

Average 

Lifetime

years Installed 

Cost

First Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

-- Base Case $1,349 $5,278 $51,268 $52,616 -- 20

1 1 $1,357 $5,271 $51,201 $52,558 1.2 20

2 2 $1,396 $5,218 $50,674 $52,070 0.8 20

3 3 $1,441 $5,171 $50,214 $51,655 0.9 20

4 4 $1,529 $5,117 $49,676 $51,205 1.1 20

5 5 $1,648 $5,036 $48,890 $50,538 1.2 20

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the base case. 

Table V.10 LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution for 

ESFM.3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 0.29% $58

2 2 1.9% $547

3 3 4.7% $961

4 4 7.0% $1,411

5 5 8.4% $2,078

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact).

161
Table V.11 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for IL.1800

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years

Average 

Lifetime

years Installed 

Cost

First Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

-- Base Case $2,128 $1,891 $16,760 $18,888 -- 16

1 1 $2,145 $1,884 $16,692 $18,837 2.3 16

2 2 $2,194 $1,868 $16,545 $18,739 2.8 16

3 3 $2,281 $1,852 $16,407 $18,688 3.9 16

4 4 $2,432 $1,835 $16,254 $18,686 5.4 16

5 5 $2,614 $1,811 $16,040 $18,654 6.1 16

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the base case.

Table V.12 LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution for 

IL.1800

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 1.8% $51

2 2 6.9% $149

3 3 15% $200

4 4 25% $202

5 5 36% $234

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact).

162
Table V.13 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for IL.3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years

Average 

Lifetime

years Installed 

Cost

First Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

-- Base Case $1,473 $2,046 $14,211 $15,684 -- 13

1 1 $1,484 $2,038 $14,155 $15,639 1.4 13

2 2 $1,525 $2,019 $14,020 $15,545 1.9 13

3 3 $1,578 $1,997 $13,865 $15,443 2.1 13

4 4 $1,650 $1,980 $13,747 $15,397 2.7 13

5 5 $1,797 $1,946 $13,510 $15,307 3.2 13

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the base case.

Table V.14 LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution for 

IL.3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 2.0% $46

2 2 13% $139

3 3 11% $241

4 4 14% $288

5 5 20% $377

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact).

163
Table V.15 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for VT-S.3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years

Average 

Lifetime

years Installed 

Cost

First Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

-- Base Case $692 $1,025 $5,857 $6,549 -- 11

1 1 $697 $1,025 $5,855 $6,551 11 11

2 2 $711 $1,021 $5,830 $6,542 4.2 11

3 3 $732 $1,002 $5,726 $6,458 1.7 11

4 4 $772 $989 $5,654 $6,426 2.2 11

5 5 $821 $977 $5,584 $6,405 2.7 11

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated considering all consumers. The PBP is measured relative to 

the base case.

Table V.16 LCC Savings Relative to the Base Case Efficiency Distribution for VTS.3600

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 1.4% $(2.4)

2 2 21% $7.2

3 3 4.4% $91

4 4 8.5% $123

5 5 13% $144

* The calculation includes consumers with zero LCC savings (no impact).

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

As shown in Table V.17 through Table V.23, the results of the life-cycle cost 

subgroup analysis indicate that for all equipment classes analyzed, the VFD subgroup

fared slightly worse than the average consumer, with the VFD subgroup being expected 

to have lower LCC savings and longer payback periods than average. This occurs mainly 

164
because with power reduction through use of a VFD, consumers use and save less energy

from pump efficiency improvements than do consumers who do not use VFDs and so 

would benefit less from the energy savings.64 Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD provides 

more detailed discussion on the LCC subgroup analysis and results.

Table V.17 Comparison of Impacts for VFD Users with Non-VFD Users, 

ESCC.1800

TSL Energy 

Efficiency 

Level

LCC Savings

2013$*

Simple Payback 

Period

years

VFD-Users Non-VFD 

Users

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

1 1 $12 $43 5.6 3.3

2 2 $71 $164 3.6 2.2

3 3 $91 $240 4.4 2.6

4 4 $104 $324 5.2 3.1

5 5 $63 $362 6.5 3.9

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

Table V.18 Comparison of Impacts for VFD Users with Non-VFD Users, 

ESCC.3600

TSL Energy 

Efficiency 

Level

LCC Savings

2013$*

Simple Payback 

Period

years

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

1 1 $8.7 $17 2.3 1.4

2 2 $51 $92 1.6 1.0

3 3 $57 $122 2.8 1.8

4 4 $83 $180 3.0 1.9

5 5 $127 $278 3.0 1.9

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

64 In this analysis, DOE does not count energy savings of switching from throttling a pump to using a VFD, 

as this is not a design option. Instead, DOE analyzes the life-cycle costs of consumers who use VFDs with 

their pumps.

165

 
Table V.19 Comparison of Impacts for VFD Users with Non-VFD Users, 

ESFM.1800

TSL Energy 

Efficiency 

Level

LCC Savings

2013$*

Simple Payback Period

years

VFD-Users Non-VFD 

Users

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

1 1 $4.3 $8.0 3.9 2.4

2 2 $85 $173 4.6 2.8

3 3 $186 $372 4.6 2.8

4 4 $355 $735 5.1 3.1

5 5 $494 $1,062 5.6 3.4

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

Table V.20 Comparison of Impacts for VFD Users with Non-VFD Users, 

ESFM.3600

TSL Energy 

Efficiency 

Level

LCC Savings

2013$*

Simple Payback Period

years

VFD-Users Non-VFD 

Users

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

1 1 $33 $58 2.0 1.2

2 2 $319 $547 1.3 0.8

3 3 $558 $961 1.4 0.9

4 4 $802 $1,411 1.8 1.1

5 5 $1,168 $2,078 2.0 1.2

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

Table V.21 Comparison of Impacts for VFD Users with Non-VFD Users, IL.1800

TSL Energy 

Efficiency 

Level

LCC Savings

2013$*

Simple Payback 

Period

years

VFD-Users Non-VFD 

Users

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

1 1 $26 $51 3.6 2.3

2 2 $67 $149 4.5 2.8

3 3 $64 $200 6.4 3.9

4 4 $6.3 $202 8.8 5.4

5 5 ($46) $234 9.9 6.1

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

Table V.22 Comparison of Impacts for VFD Users with Non-VFD Users, IL.3600

TSL Energy 

Efficiency 

Level

LCC Savings

2013$*

Simple Payback Period

years

VFD-Users Non-VFD 

Users

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

1 1 $25 $46 2.2 1.4

2 2 $67 $139 3.1 1.9

3 3 $111 $241 3.5 2.1

4 4 $113 $288 4.3 2.7

5 5 $112 $377 5.2 3.2

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

166
Table V.23 Comparison of Impacts for VFD Users with Non-VFD Users, VT-S.3600

TSL Energy 

Efficiency 

Level

LCC Savings

2013$*

Simple Payback 

Period

years

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

VFDUsersNon-VFD 

Users

1 1 $(3.5) $(2.4) 18 11

2 2 $(2.6) $7.2 6.6 4.2

3 3 $44 $91 2.7 1.7

4 4 $50 $123 3.5 2.2

5 5 $46 $144 4.2 2.7

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

As discussed in section III.H.2, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that, in 

essence, an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 

the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. However, DOE routinely 

conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those 

to the consumer, manufacturer, nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification. For 

comparison with the more detailed analytical results, DOE calculated a rebuttable 

presumption payback period for each TSL. Table V.24 shows the rebuttable presumption 

payback periods for the pump equipment classes. 

167
Table V.24 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Periods for Commercial and 

Industrial Pump Equipment Classes

Equipment Class Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

years

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

ESCC.1800 3.4 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.9

ESCC.3600 1.4 1.0 1.7 1.8 1.9

ESFM.1800 2.4 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.4

ESFM.3600 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2

IL.1800 2.3 2.8 3.9 5.4 6.0

IL.3600 1.3 1.9 2.1 2.7 3.2

VT-S.3600 11 4.2 1.8 2.3 2.7

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

As noted above, DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of energy 

conservation standards on manufacturers of pumps. The following section summarizes

the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD explains the analysis in further detail.

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results

Table V.25 and Table V.26 depict the financial impacts (represented by changes 

in INPV) of energy standards on manufacturers of pumps, as well as the conversion costs 

that DOE expects manufacturers would incur for all equipment classes at each TSL. To 

evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the CIP industry, DOE modeled two different 

mark-up scenarios using different assumptions that correspond to the range of anticipated 

market responses to energy conservation standards: (1) the flat markup scenario; and (2) 

the cost recovery markup scenario. Each of these scenarios is discussed immediately 

below. 

168
Under the flat markup scenario, DOE maintains the same markup in the base case 

and standards case. This results in no price change at a given efficiency level for the 

manufacturer’s first consumer. Because this markup scenario assumes that 

manufacturers would not increase their pricing as a result of a standard even as they incur 

conversion costs, this markup scenario is the most negative and results in the most 

negative impacts on INPV. 

In the cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturer markups are set so that 

manufacturers recover their conversion costs over the analysis period. That cost recovery 

is enabled by an increase in mark-up, which results in higher sales prices for pumps even 

as manufacturer product costs stay the same. The cost recovery calculation assumes 

manufacturers raise prices on models where a redesign is necessitates by the standard. 

This cost recovery scenario results in more positive results than the flat markup scenario. 

The set of results below shows potential INPV impacts for pump manufacturers; 

Table V.25 reflects the lower bound of impacts (i.e., the flat markup scenario), and Table 

V.26 represents the upper bound (the cost recovery markup scenario).

Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry values at each TSL. In the following discussion, the INPV results 

refer to the difference in industry value between the base case and each standards case 

that results from the sum of discounted cash flows from the base year 2014 through 2048, 

the end of the analysis period. 

169
To provide perspective on the short-run cash flow impact, DOE includes in the 

discussion of the results below a comparison of free cash flow between the base case and 

the standards case at each TSL in the year before new standards would take effect. This 

figure provides an understanding of the magnitude of the required conversion costs 

relative to the cash flow generated by the industry in the base case.

Table V.25 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial and Industrial Pumps -

Flat Markup Scenario*

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV $M 121.4 111.6 81.9 22.4 (85.0) (228.4)

Change in INPV

$M - (9.8) (39.5) (99) (206.3) (349.8)

% - (8.0) (32.5) (81.6) (170.0) (288.2)

Total Conversion 

Costs $M - 19.9 78.4 174.3 335.0 547.7

Free Cash Flow

(2018) $M 12.2 5.6 (16.1) (58.7) (130.1) (224.4)

Free Cash Flow

(2018) % Change - (54.3) (232.5) (582.0) (1167.5) (1942.4)

* Values in parentheses are negative values.

Table V.26 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial and Industrial Pumps –

Cost Recovery Markup Scenario*

Units Base 

Case

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV $M 121.4 121.8 129.7 125.4 114.1 94.1

Change in INPV

$M - 0.4 8.3 4.0 (7.2) (27.3)

% - 0.3 6.9 3.3 (6.0) (22.5)

Total Conversion

Costs $M - 19.9 78.4 174.3 335.0 547.7

Free Cash Flow

(2018) $M 12.2 5.6 (16.1) (58.7) (130.1) (224.4)

Free Cash Flow

(2018) % Change - (54.3) (232.5) (582.0) (1167.5) (1942.4)

* Values in parentheses are negative values.

170
TSL 1 represents EL 1 for all equipment classes. At TSL 1, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV for pump manufacturers to range from -8.0 percent to 0.3 percent, or a 

change in INPV of -$9.8 million to $0.4 million. At this potential standard level, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 54.3 percent to $5.6 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $12.2 million in the year before the compliance date 

(2019). The industry would need to either drop product lines or engage in redesign of 

approximately 10% of their models. DOE estimates that manufacturers would incur

conversion costs totaling $19.9 million, driven by hydraulic redesigns. 

TSL 2 represents EL 2 across all equipment classes. At TSL 2, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV for pump manufacturers to range from -32.5 percent to 6.9 percent, or a 

change in INPV of -$39.5 million to $8.3 million. At this potential standard level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 232.5 percent to -$16.1

million, compared to the base-case value of $12.2 million in the year before the 

compliance date (2019). Conversion costs for an estimated 25% of model offerings, 

would be approximately $78.4 million for the industry. At TSL 2, the industry’s annual

free cash flow is estimated to drop below zero in 2018 and 2019, the years where 

conversion investments are the greatest. The negative free cash flow indicates that at 

least some manufacturers in the industry would need to access cash reserves or borrow 

money from capital markets to cover conversion costs.

171
TSL 3 represents EL 3 for all equipment classes. At TSL 3, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV for pump manufacturers to range from -81.6 percent to 3.3 percent, or a 

change in INPV of -$99 million to $4 million. At TSL 3, industry conversion costs for an 

estimated 40% of model offerings would be approximately $174.3 million. As 

conversion costs increase, free cash flow continues to drop in the years before the 

standard year. This increases the likelihood that manufacturers will need to seek outside 

capital to support their conversion efforts. Furthermore, as more models require 

redesign, technical resources for hydraulic redesign could become an industry-wide 

constraint. Participants in the CIP Working Group noted that the industry as a whole 

relies on a limited pool of hydraulic redesign engineers and consultants. These specialists 

can support only a limited number of redesigns per year. Industry representatives stated 

that TSL 3 could be an upper bound to the number of redesigns possible in the four years 

between announcement and effective year of the final rule. 

TSL 4 represents EL4 across all equipment classes. At TSL 4, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV for pump manufacturers to range from -170 percent to -6 percent, or a 

change in INPV of -$206.3 million to -$7.2 million. At this potential standard level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 1167.5 percent relative 

to the base-case value of $12.2 million in the year before the compliance date (2019). The 

total industry conversion costs for an estimated 55% of model offerings would be 

approximately $335 million. The 1167.5% drop in free cash flow in 2019 indicates that 

the conversion costs are a very large investment relative to typical industry operations. 

As noted above, at TSL 2 and TSL 3, manufacturers may need to access cash reserves or 

172
outside capital to finance conversion efforts. Additionally, the industry may not be able 

to convert all necessary models before the compliance date of the standard.

TSL 5 represents max-tech across all equipment classes. At TSL 5, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV for pump manufacturers to range from -288.2 percent to -22.5

percent, or a change in INPV of -$349.8 million to -$27.3 million. At this potential 

standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 1942.4

percent relative to the base-case value of $12.2 million in the year before the compliance 

date (2019). At max-tech, DOE estimates total industry conversion costs for an estimated 

70% of model offerings, would be approximately $547.7 million. The negative impacts 

related to cash availability, need for outside capital, and technical resources constraints at 

TSLs 2, 3, and 4 would increase at TSL 5.

DOE requests comment on the capital conversion costs and product conversion 

costs estimated for each TSL. This matter is identified as Issue 12 under “Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR.

In section VI, DOE proposes labeling requirements recommended by the CIP 

Working Group. DOE recognizes that such requirements may result in costs to 

manufacturers. Costs of updating marketing materials for redesigned pumps in each 

standards case were included in the conversion costs for the industry and are accounted 

for in the industry cash-flow analysis results and industry valuation figures presented in 

this section. However, DOE notes that costs of updating marketing materials for pumps 

173
that do not have to be redesigned to meet the standard are not considered in the industry 

valuation figures because these costs would be incurred by manufacturers in order to 

make representations of energy use (PEI) according to the proposed test procedure, as 

well as to include labeling requirements, regardless of whether DOE set an energy 

conservation standard or what TSL DOE selected. These costs are discussed in section 

VI. 

b. Impacts on Direct Employment

To quantitatively assess the impacts of energy conservation standards on direct 

employment in the pumps industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of employees in the base case and at each TSL from 2015

through 2049. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 Annual 

Survey of Manufacturers (ASM),65 the results of the engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the inputs necessary to calculate industry-wide labor 

expenditures and domestic employment levels. Labor expenditures related to 

manufacturing of the product are a function of the labor intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total 

labor expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the MPCs by the labor 

percentage of MPCs. Based on feedback from manufacturers, DOE believes that 99% of 

the covered pumps are produced in the U.S. Therefore, 99% of the total labor 

expenditures contribute to domestic production employment.

65 "Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM)," U.S. Census Bureau (2011) (Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/).

Comment [A24]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

174

 
The total domestic labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to 

domestic production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures by the 

annual payment per production worker (production worker hours multiplied by the labor 

rate found in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 ASM). The estimates of production 

workers in this section cover workers, including line-supervisors directly involved in 

fabricating and assembling a product within the manufacturing facility. Workers 

performing services that are closely associated with production operations, such as

materials handling tasks using forklifts, are also included as production labor. DOE’s 

estimates only account for production workers who manufacture the specific products 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE estimates that in the absence of energy conservation 

standards, there would be 415 domestic production workers for covered pumps. 

In the standards case, DOE estimates an upper and lower bound to the potential 

changes in employment that result from the standard. Table V.27 shows the range of the 

impacts of potential energy conservation standards on U.S. production workers of pumps. 

Table V.27 Potential Changes in the Total Number of Commercial and Industrial 

Pump Production Workers in 2020*

Trial Standard Level

Base 

Case 1 2 3 4 5

Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2020 

(relative to a base case 

employment of 415)

-

(41)

to

0

(104)

to

0

(166)

to

0

(228)

to

0

(290)

to

0

*Parentheses indicate negative values.

175
Based on the engineering analysis, MPCs and labor expenditures do not vary 

with efficiency and increasing TSLs. Additionally, the shipments analysis models 

consistent shipments at all TSLs. As a result, the GRIM predicts no change in 

employment in the standards case. DOE considers this to be the upper bound for change 

in employment. For a lower bound, DOE assumes a loss of employment that is directly 

proportional to the portion of pumps being eliminated from the market. Additional detail 

can be found in chapter 12 of the TSD.

DOE notes that the direct employment impacts discussed here are independent of 

the indirect employment impacts to the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in 

chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.

DOE requests comment on the potential impacts on manufacturer employment 

and the specific drivers of any expected change in production line employment. This 

matter is identified as Issue 13 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section 

VIII.E of this NOPR.

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

Based on the engineering analysis, DOE concludes that higher efficiency pumps 

require similar production facilities, tooling, and labor as baseline efficiency pumps. 

Based on the engineering analysis and interviews with manufacturers, a new energy 

conservation standard is unlikely to create production capacity constraints. 

Comment [A25]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

176
However, industry representatives, in interviews and in the CIP Working Group

meetings, expressed concern about the industry’s ability to complete the necessary 

number of hydraulic redesigns required to comply with a new standard. (EERE-2013-BTNOC-0039-0109, pp. 280-283) In the industry, not all companies have the in-house 

capacity to redesign pumps. Many companies rely on outside consultants for a portion or 

all of their hydraulic design projects. Manufacturers were concerned that a new standard 

would create more demand for hydraulic design technical resources than are available in 

the industry. 

The number of pumps that require redesign is directly tied to the proposed standard 

level. The level proposed today is based on a level that the CIP Working Group

considered feasible for the industry. DOE requests comments on the potential for 

production line capacity constraints and on the potential for technical resource constraints 

due to the proposed standard.

DOE requests comments and data on capacity constraints at each TSL – including 

production capacity constraints, engineering resource constraints, and testing capacity 

constraints. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether the proposed compliance 

date allows for a sufficient conversion period to make the equipment design and facility 

updates necessary to meet a new standard. This matter is identified as Issue 14 under 

“Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR. Comment [A26]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

177
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

Small manufacturers, niche equipment manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure substantially different from the industry average could be

affected disproportionately. Using average cost assumptions developed for an industry 

cash-flow estimate is inadequate to assess differential impacts among manufacturer 

subgroups. 

For the CIP industry, DOE identified and evaluated the impact of energy 

conservation standards on one subgroup – small manufacturers. The SBA defines a 

“small business” as having 500 employees or less for NAICS 333911, “Pump and 

Pumping Equipment Manufacturing.” Based on this definition, DOE identified 39

manufacturers in the CIP industry that qualify as small businesses. For a discussion of 

the impacts on the small manufacturer subgroup, see the regulatory flexibility analysis in 

section VI.B of this notice and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of recent or impending regulations may have serious consequences 

for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In 

addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets 

178
with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE 

conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency. 

For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE looks at product-specific

Federal regulations that could affect pumps manufacturers and with which compliance is 

required approximately three years before or after the 2020 compliance date of standard 

proposed in this notice. The Department was not able to identify any additional 

regulatory burdens that met these criteria. 

DOE requests comments the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers. 

Specifically, DOE seeks input on any product-specific Federal regulations with which 

compliance is required within three years of the proposed compliance date for any final 

pumps standards, as well as on recommendations on how DOE may be able to align 

varying regulations to mitigate cumulative burden. This matter is identified as Issue 15

under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR.

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings for pumps purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of compliance with new standards (2020-2049). The 

savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year 

Comment [A27]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

179
period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in 

energy consumption between each standards case and the base case described in section

IV.H.2.

Table V.28 presents the estimated primary energy savings for each considered 

TSL, and Table V.29 presents the estimated FFC energy savings. The approach is further 

described in section IV.H.1. 

Table V.28 Cumulative National Primary Energy Savings for Commercial and 

Industrial Pump Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2020-2049

Equipment 

Class

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Quads

ESCC.1800 0.016 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.16

ESCC.3600 0.016 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.26

ESFM.1800 0.003 0.05 0.11 0.23 0.35

ESFM.3600 0.002 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07

IL.1800 0.015 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.16

IL.3600 0.003 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03

VT-S.3600 0.002 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.22

Total -- All 

Classes 0.056 0.27 0.54 0.87 1.26

Note: Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

Table V.29 Cumulative National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings for Commercial 

and Industrial Pump Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2020-2049

Equipment 

Class

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Quads

ESCC.1800 0.017 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.17

ESCC.3600 0.017 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.28

ESFM.1800 0.003 0.06 0.12 0.25 0.37

ESFM.3600 0.002 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07

IL.1800 0.016 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.17

IL.3600 0.003 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03

VT-S.3600 0.002 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.24

Total -- All 

Classes 0.059 0.28 0.56 0.91 1.32

Note: Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

Comment [A28]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

180
Circular A-4 requires agencies to present analytical results, including separate 

schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of benefits 

and costs.66 Circular A-4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using nine rather than 30 years of equipment shipments. The choice 

of a nine-year period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 

standards.67 The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally not synchronized 

with the equipment lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to 

pumps. Thus, such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical methodology. The NES results based on a 

nine-year analytical period are presented in Table V.30. The impacts are counted over 

the lifetime of equipment purchased in 2020–2028.

66 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis” (Sept. 17, 2003) 

(Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ ). 67 EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once every six years, and requires, for certain 

products, a three-year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required within six years of the compliance date of the previous 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m) and 6313(a)(6)(C)) While adding a six-year review to the three-year 

compliance period adds up to nine years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 

six-year period and that the three-year compliance date may yield to the six-year backstop. A nine-year 

analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews 

and the fact that for some consumer products, the compliance period is five years rather than three years.

181

 
Table V.30 Cumulative National Primary Energy Savings for Commercial and 

Industrial Pump Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2020-2028

Equipment 

Class

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Quads

ESCC.1800 0.004 0.013 0.020 0.03 0.04

ESCC.3600 0.004 0.019 0.029 0.04 0.07

ESFM.1800 0.001 0.014 0.030 0.06 0.09

ESFM.3600 0.001 0.004 0.008 0.01 0.02

IL.1800 0.004 0.012 0.020 0.03 0.04

IL.3600 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.01 0.01

VT-S.3600 0.001 0.006 0.028 0.04 0.06

Total -- All 

Classes 0.015 0.071 0.141 0.23 0.33

Note: Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for consumers 

that would result from the TSLs considered for pumps. In accordance with OMB’s 

guidelines on regulatory analysis, 68 DOE calculated NPV using both a seven-percent and 

a three-percent real discount rate. Table V.31 shows the consumer NPV results for each 

TSL considered for pumps. In each case, the impacts cover the lifetime of equipment 

purchased in 2020-2049. 

68 OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003) (Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4). 

182

 
Table V.31 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit for Commercial 

and Industrial Pump Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2020-2049

Equipment 

Class

Discount 

Rate (%)

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Billion 2013$*

ESCC.1800 3 0.052 0.20 0.29 0.40 0.47

7 0.018 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.15

ESCC.3600 3 0.069 0.34 0.46 0.68 1.06

7 0.028 0.14 0.18 0.26 0.41

ESFM.1800 3 0.010 0.20 0.44 0.88 1.28

7 0.003 0.06 0.14 0.27 0.39

ESFM.3600 3 0.009 0.08 0.14 0.20 0.30

7 0.003 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11

IL.1800 3 0.063 0.18 0.25 0.28 0.34

7 0.022 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07

IL.3600 3 0.011 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11

7 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

VT-S.3600 3 (0.001) 0.07 0.49 0.71 0.90

7 (0.002) 0.02 0.20 0.28 0.35

Total -- All 

Classes

3 0.213 1.11 2.13 3.23 4.47

7 0.077 0.41 0.77 1.13 1.51

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.

Note: Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

The NPV results based on the aforementioned nine-year analytical period are 

presented in Table V.32. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of equipment

purchased in 2020–2028. As mentioned previously, this information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology or decision criteria. 

183
Table V.32 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit for Commercial 

and Industrial Pump Trial Standard Levels for Units Sold in 2020-2028

Equipment 

Class

Discount 

Rate (%)

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Billion 2013$*

ESCC.1800 3 0.017 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.15 

7 0.008 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 

ESCC.3600 3 0.023 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.35 

7 0.013 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.18 

ESFM.1800 3 0.003 0.07 0.14 0.29 0.42 

7 0.002 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.18 

ESFM.3600 3 0.003 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.10 

7 0.001 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 

IL.1800 3 0.021 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.10 

7 0.010 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 

IL.3600 3 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 

7 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 

VT-S.3600 3 (0.001) 0.02 0.16 0.23 0.30 

7 (0.001) 0.01 0.09 0.13 0.16 

Total -- All 

Classes

3 0.070 0.36 0.70 1.06 1.45 

7 0.035 0.18 0.35 0.51 0.68 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.

Note: Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

The results presented in this section reflect an assumption of no change in pump

prices over the forecast period. In addition, DOE conducted sensitivity analyses using 

alternative price trends: one in which prices decline over time, and one in which prices 

increase. These price trends, and the associated NPV results, are described in appendix 

10B of the NOPR TSD.

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE expects energy conservation standards for pumps to reduce energy costs for 

equipment owners, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. Those shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the 

demand for labor. As described in section IV.N, DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered 

184
in this rulemaking. DOE understands that there are uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, 

DOE generated results for near-term time frames (2020–2024), where these uncertainties 

are reduced. 

The results suggest that these proposed standards would be likely to have 

negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The projected net change 

in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD 

presents more detailed results about anticipated indirect employment impacts.

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment

Any technology option expected to lessen the utility or performance of pumps

was removed from consideration in the screening analysis. As a result, DOE considered 

only one design option in this NOPR, hydraulic redesign. This design option does not 

involve geometry changes affecting installation of the pump (i.e., the flanges that connect 

it to external piping) – hence, there is no utility difference that might affect use of the 

more-efficient pumps for replacement applications. Further, the design option would not 

reduce the acceptable performance envelope of the pump (e.g., the combinations of 

pressure and flow for which the pump can be operated, restrictions to less corrosive 

environments, restrictions on acceptable operating temperature range). The hydraulic 

redesign would affect only the required power input, making no change to pump utility or 

performance.

185
DOE seeks comment on the impacts, if any, there would be on the level of utility 

and available features currently offered by manufacturers with respect to the pumps that 

would be regulated under this proposal. This matter is identified as Issue 16 under “Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR.

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely to result from 

new standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such determination 

in writing to the Secretary, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such 

impact. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V) and 6316(a).)

To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE will provide 

DOJ with copies of this notice and the TSD for review. DOE will consider DOJ’s 

comments on the proposed rule in preparing the final rule, and DOE will publish and 

respond to DOJ’s comments in that document.

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

An improvement in the energy efficiency of the equipment subject to this rule is 

likely to improve the security of the nation’s energy system by reducing the overall 

demand for energy. Reduced electricity demand may also improve the reliability of the 

Comment [A29]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

186
electricity system. Reductions in national electric generating capacity estimated for each 

considered TSL are reported in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.

Energy savings from new standards for the pump equipment classes covered in 

today’s NOPR could also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity production.

Table V.33 provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative emissions reductions projected to 

result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The table includes both power sector 

emissions and upstream emissions. The upstream emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. As discussed in section IV.L, 

DOE did not include NOX emissions reduction from power plants in States subject to 

CAIR, because an energy conservation standard would not affect the overall level of NOX

emissions in those States due to the emissions caps mandated by CSAPR. 

187
Table V.33 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Potential Standards for 

Commercial and Industrial Pumps

TSL

1 2 3 4 5

Power Sector Emissions

CO2 (million metric tons) 3.2 15 31 50 72

SO2 (thousand tons) 2.6 13 25 40 58

NOX (thousand tons) 2.5 12 23 38 55

Hg (tons) 0.008 0.039 0.077 0.124 0.180

CH4 (thousand tons) 0.32 1.54 3.07 4.95 7.20

N2O (thousand tons) 0.05 0.22 0.44 0.71 1.03

Upstream Emissions

CO2 (million metric tons) 0.19 0.91 1.81 2.93 4.26

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.03 0.16 0.32 0.51 0.74

NOX (thousand tons) 2.7 13 26 42 61

Hg (tons) 0.0001 0.0004 0.0007 0.0011 0.0016

CH4 (thousand tons) 16 76 151 244 354

N2O (thousand tons) 0.002 0.008 0.016 0.025 0.036

Total Emissions

CO2 (million metric tons) 3.4 16 33 53 77

SO2 (thousand tons) 2.7 13 25 41 59

NOX (thousand tons) 5.2 25 49 80 116

Hg (tons) 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.18

CH4 (thousand tons) 16 77 154 248 362

N2O (thousand tons) 0.05 0.23 0.45 0.73 1.07

As part of the analysis for this NOPR, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX estimated for each of the TSLs

considered for pumps. As discussed in section IV.L, for CO2, DOE used values for the 

SCC developed by an interagency process. The interagency group selected four sets of 

SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets are based on the average SCC from 

three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 

percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th-percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected 

impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The 

four SCC values for CO2 emissions reductions in 2015, expressed in 2013$, are 

$12.0/ton, $40.5/ton, $62.4/ton, and $119/ton. The values for later years are higher due 

188
to increasing emissions-related costs as the magnitude of projected climate change 

increases. 

Table V.34 presents the global value of CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. 

DOE calculated domestic values as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global 

values, and these results are presented in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. See Section IV. 

L. for further details.

Table V.34 Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Potential 

Standards for Commercial and Industrial Pumps

TSL

SCC Scenario*

5% discount 

rate, average

3% discount 

rate, average

2.5% discount 

rate, average

3% discount 

rate, 95th

percentile

Million 2013$

Power Sector Emissions

1 21 100 160 310

2 100 474 757 1468

3 199 944 1506 2921

4 319 1517 2421 4695

5 463 2205 3521 6826

Upstream Emissions

1 1.2 5.8 9.3 18

2 5.8 28 44 86

3 11 55 88 170

4 18 88 141 274

5 27 129 206 398

Total Emissions

1 22 106 169 329

2 106 502 801 1554

3 210 999 1594 3092

4 337 1605 2563 4969

5 490 2334 3726 7224

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is 

$12.0, $40.5, $62.4 and $119 per metric ton (2013$).

DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution 

of CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to changes in the future global 

189
climate and the potential resulting damages to the world economy continues to evolve 

rapidly. Thus, any value placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is subject 

to change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to review various 

methodologies for estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are part 

of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other methodological 

assumptions and issues. However, consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, and taking 

into account the uncertainty involved with this particular issue, DOE has included in this

NOPR the most recent values and analyses resulting from the interagency review process.

DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic 

benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions anticipated to result from new 

standards for the pump equipment that is the subject of this NOPR. The dollar-per-ton 

values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L. Table V.35 presents the present 

value of cumulative NOX emissions reductions for each TSL calculated using the average 

dollar-per-ton values and seven-percent and three-percent discount rates.

190
Table V.35 Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for Potential Standards for 

Commercial and Industrial Pumps

TSL 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Million 2013$

Power Sector Emissions

1 3.1 1.4

2 15 6.4

3 29 13

4 47 20

5 68 29

Upstream Emissions

1 3.3 1.4

2 16 6.4

3 31 13

4 50 20

5 72 30

Total Emissions

1 6.5 2.8

2 30 13

3 60 25

4 97 41

5 141 59

The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be 

viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. Table V.36 presents the NPV values that result from 

adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of consumer savings 

calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both a seven-percent and a

three-percent discount rate. The CO2 values used in the columns of each table 

correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO2 emission reductions discussed 

above.

191
Table V.36 Commercial and Industrial Pump TSLs: Net Present Value of 

Consumer Savings Combined with Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from 

CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions 

TSL

Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

SCC Value of 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

SCC Value of 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

SCC Value of 

$119/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

Billion 2013$

1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

2 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.7

3 2.4 3.2 3.8 5.3

4 3.7 4.9 5.9 8.3

5 5.1 6.9 8.3 12

TSL

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

SCC Value of 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

SCC Value of 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

SCC Value of 

$119/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

Billion 2013$

1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4

2 0.5 0.9 1.2 2.0

3 1.0 1.8 2.4 3.9

4 1.5 2.8 3.7 6.1

5 2.1 3.9 5.3 8.8

Note: Parentheses indicate negative values.

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$. The present values have been calculated 

with scenario-consistent discount rates. ** Medium Value corresponds to $2,684 per ton of NOX emissions.

Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission 

reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur 

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and the SCC are performed 

with different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 

operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of equipment shipped in 2020–2049. 

The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of CO2 in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100.

192
7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically 

justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a).) In developing the proposed standard, DOE 

considered the term sheet of recommendations voted on by the CIP Working Group and 

approved by the ASRAC. (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092.) DOE has weighed 

the value of such negotiation in establishing the standards proposed in today’s rule. DOE 

has encouraged the negotiation of proposed standard levels, in accordance with the 

FACA and the NRA, as a means for interested parties, representing diverse points of 

view, to analyze and recommend energy conservation standards to DOE. Such 

negotiations may often expedite the rulemaking process. In addition, standard levels 

recommended through a negotiation may increase the likelihood for regulatory 

compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation. 

C. Proposed Standards

When considering standards, the new or amended energy conservation standard 

that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered equipment shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a).) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, 

the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, 

considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the seven statutory factors discussed 

193
previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a).) The new or amended standard 

must also “result in significant conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 

6316(a).)

For today’s NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of new standards for pumps at 

each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine 

whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not 

justified, DOE then considered the next-most-efficient level and undertook the same 

evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible 

and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.

To aid the reader in understanding the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables 

in this section summarize the quantitative analytical results for each TSL, based on the 

assumptions and methodology discussed herein. The efficiency levels contained in each 

TSL are described in section V.A. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. 

These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 

disproportionately affected by a national standard, and impacts on employment. Section 

V.B.1.b presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups. DOE discusses 

the impacts on direct employment in pump manufacturing in section V.B.2.b, and the 

indirect employment impacts in section V.B.3.c.

194
1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for Commercial and 

Industrial Pumps 

Table V.37, Table V.38, and Table V.39 summarize the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for pumps. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime 

of pumps purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new 

standards (2020-2049). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of 

emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results.

Table V.37 Summary of Analytical Results for Commercial and Industrial Pumps: 

National Impacts

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

National FFC Energy 

Savings

quads

0.059 0.28 0.56 0.91 1.32

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2013$ billion)

3% discount rate 0.213 1.11 2.13 3.23 4.47

7% discount rate 0.077 0.41 0.77 1.13 1.51

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction

CO2 (million metric 

tons) 3.4 16 33 53 77

SO2 (thousand tons) 2.7 13 25 41 59

NOX (thousand tons) 5.2 25 49 80 116

Hg (tons) 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.18

CH4 (thousand tons) 16 77 154 248 362

N2O (thousand tons) 0.05 0.23 0.45 0.73 1.07

Value of Emissions Reduction

CO2 (2013$ million)* 22 to 329 106 to 1554 210 to 3092 337 to 4969 490 to 7224

NOX – 3% discount rate 

(2013$ million) 6.5 30 60 97 141

NOX – 7% discount rate 

(2013$ million) 2.8 13 25 41 59

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced 

CO2 emissions.

Note: Parentheses indicate negative values.

195
Table V.38 NPV of Consumer Benefits by Equipment Class

Equipment 

Class

Discount 

Rate (%)

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

Billion 2013$*

ESCC.1800 3 0.052 0.20 0.29 0.40 0.47

7 0.018 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.15

ESCC.3600 3 0.069 0.34 0.46 0.68 1.06

7 0.028 0.14 0.18 0.26 0.41

ESFM.1800 3 0.010 0.20 0.44 0.88 1.28

7 0.003 0.06 0.14 0.27 0.39

ESFM.3600 3 0.009 0.08 0.14 0.20 0.30

7 0.003 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11

IL.1800 3 0.063 0.18 0.25 0.28 0.34

7 0.022 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07

IL.3600 3 0.011 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11

7 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

VT-S.3600 3 (0.001) 0.07 0.49 0.71 0.90

7 (0.002) 0.02 0.20 0.28 0.35

Total -- All 

Classes

3 0.213 1.11 2.13 3.23 4.47

7 0.077 0.41 0.77 1.13 1.51

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.

Note: Components may not sum to total due to rounding.

196
Table V.39 Summary of Analytical Results for Commercial and Industrial Pumps: 

Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts

TSL 1 TSL2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Manufacturer Impacts

Industry NPV 

relative to a 

base case value 

of 121.4 (2013$ 

millions)

111.6 to 121.8 81.9 to 129.7 22.4 to 125.3 (85.0) to 114.1 (228.4) to 

94.1

Industry NPV 

(% change)

(8.0) 

to 

0.3

(32.5) 

to 

6.9

(81.6) 

to 

3.3

(170.0) 

to 

(6.0)

(288.2) 

to 

(22.5)

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2013$)

ESCC.1800 $43 $164 $240 $324 $362

ESCC.3600 $17 $92 $122 $180 $278

ESFM.1800 $8.0 $173 $372 $735 $1,062

ESFM.3600 $58 $547 $961 $1,411 $2,078

IL.1800 $51 $149 $200 $202 $234

IL.3600 $46 $139 $241 $288 $377

VT-S.3600 ($2.4) $7.2 $91 $123 $144

Consumer Simple PBP (years)

ESCC.1800 3.3 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.9

ESCC.3600 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.9

ESFM.1800 2.4 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.4

ESFM.3600 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2

IL.1800 2.3 2.8 3.9 5.4 6.1

IL.3600 1.4 1.9 2.1 2.7 3.2

VT-S.3600 11 4.2 1.7 2.2 2.7

Percent Consumers with Net Cost (%)

ESCC.1800 12 11 23 30 42

ESCC.3600 0.7 1.8 14 14 12

ESFM.1800 0.26 6.5 15 24 26

ESFM.3600 0.29 1.9 4.7 7.0 8.4

IL.1800 1.8 6.9 15 25 36

IL.3600 2.0 13 11 14 20

VT-S.3600 1.4 21 4.4 8.5 13

Note: Parentheses indicate negative values.

First, DOE considered TSL 5, which would save an estimated total of 1.32 quads 

of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 5 has an estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit of $1.51 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $4.47 billion using 

a 3-percent discount rate. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 77 million 

metric tons of CO2, 116 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.18 tons of Hg. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $490 million to 

197
$7,224 million. At TSL 5, the average LCC savings ranges from $144 to $2,078

depending on equipment class. The fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits 

range from 8.4 percent to 42 percent depending on equipment class. At TSL 5, the 

projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $349.8 million to a decrease of 

$27.3 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the lower bound of the 

range of impacts is reached TSL 5 could result in a net loss of up to 288.2 percent in 

INPV for manufacturers.

 

Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively concludes that, at TSL 5 for pumps, the 

benefits of energy savings, national net present value of consumer benefit, LCC savings, 

emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would be outweighed by the fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits and the 

significant burden on the industry. Consequently, DOE has concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 4, which would save an estimated total of 0.91 quads 

of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 4 has an estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit of $1.13 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $3.23 billion using 

a 3-percent discount rate. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 53 million 

metric tons of CO2, 80 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.13 tons of Hg. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $337 million to 

$4,969 million. At TSL 4, the average LCC savings ranges from $123 to $1,411

198
depending on equipment class. The fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits 

range from 7.0 percent to 30 percent depending on equipment class. At TSL 4, the 

projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $206.3 million to a decrease of $7.2 

million. At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the lower bound of the 

range of impacts is reached TSL 4 could result in a net loss of up to 170 percent in INPV 

for manufacturers.

 

Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for pumps, the 

benefits of energy savings, national net present value of consumer benefit, LCC savings, 

emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would be outweighed by the fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits and the 

significant burden on the industry. Consequently, DOE has concluded that TSL 4 is not 

economically justified. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 3, which would save an estimated total of 0.56 quads 

of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 3 has an estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit of $0.77 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $2.13 billion using 

a 3-percent discount rate. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 33 million 

metric tons of CO2, 49 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.08 tons of Hg. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $210 million to 

$3,092 million. At TSL 3, the average LCC savings are range from $91 to $961

depending on equipment class. The fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits 

Comment [A30]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

199
ranged from 4.4 percent to 23 percent depending on equipment class. At TSL 3, the 

projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $99 million to an increase of $4

million. If the lower bound of the range of impacts is reached, TSL 3 could result in a net 

loss of up to 81.6 percent in INPV for manufacturers.

Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for pumps, the 

benefits of energy savings, national net present value of consumer benefit, LCC savings, 

emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would be outweighed by the fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits and the

significant burden on the industry. Consequently, DOE has concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

Next, DOE considered TSL 2, which would save an estimated total of 0.28 quads 

of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 2 has an estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit of $0.41 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.11 billion using 

a 3-percent discount rate. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 16 million 

metric tons of CO2, 25 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.04 tons of Hg. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $106 million to 

$1,554 million. At TSL 2, the average LCC savings range from $7.2 to $547 depending 

on equipment class. The fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits range from 

1.8 percent to 21 percent depending on equipment class. At TSL 2, the projected change 

in INPV ranges from a decrease of $39.5 million to an increase of $8.3 million. If the 

Comment [A31]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

200
lower bound of the range of impacts is reached, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of up to 

32.5 percent in INPV for manufacturers.

After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the burdens, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that at TSL 2 for pumps, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefit, positive average consumer LCC savings, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would outweigh 

the fraction of consumers with negative LCC benefits and the potential reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. 

In addition, the proposed standards are consistent with the recommendations 

voted on by the CIP Working Group and approved by the ASRAC. (See EERE-2013-

BT-NOC-0039-0092.) DOE has encouraged the negotiation of proposed standard levels, 

in accordance with the FACA and the NRA, as a means for interested parties, 

representing diverse points of view, to analyze and recommend energy conservation 

standards to DOE. Such negotiations may often expedite the rulemaking process. In 

addition, standard levels recommended through a negotiation may increase the likelihood 

for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.

The Secretary of Energy has tentatively concluded that TSL 2 would save a 

significant amount of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. 

For the above reasons, DOE today proposes to adopt the energy conservation standards 

Comment [A32]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

201
for pumps at TSL 2. Table V.40 presents the proposed energy conservation standards for 

pumps. 

Table V.40 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and 

Industrial Pumps

Equipment Class

Proposed standard 

level * Proposed C-Value

ESCC.1800.CL 1.00 128.47

ESCC.3600.CL 1.00 130.42

ESCC.1800.VL 1.00 128.47

ESCC.3600.VL 1.00 130.42

ESFM.1800.CL 1.00 128.85

ESFM.3600.CL 1.00 130.99

ESFM.1800.VL 1.00 128.85

ESFM.3600.VL 1.00 130.99

IL.1800.CL 1.00 129.30

IL.3600.CL 1.00 133.84

IL.1800.VL 1.00 129.30

IL.3600.VL 1.00 133.84

RS-V.1800.CL 1.00 129.63

RS-V.3600.CL 1.00 133.20

RS-V.1800.VL 1.00 129.63

RS-V.3600.VL 1.00 133.20

VT-S.1800.CL 1.00 134.13

VT-S.3600.CL 1.00 134.13

VT-S.1800.VL 1.00 134.13

VT-S.3600.VL 1.00 134.13

* A pump model is compliant if its PEI rating is less than or equal to 

the proposed standard.

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed Standards

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) the 

annualized national economic value, expressed in 2013$, of the benefits from operating 

equipment that meets the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost 

202
savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is 

another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits 

of emission reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.69 The value of the CO2

reductions (i.e., SCC), is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO2

developed by a recent interagency process. See section IV.L.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 reductions provides 

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings and SCC are performed with different methods that 

use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured 

for the lifetime of equipment shipped in 2020–2049. The SCC values, on the other hand, 

reflect the present value of future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 

one metric ton of CO2 in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Table V.41 shows the annualized values for the proposed standards for pumps. 

The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount 

rate along with the average SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 2015, the cost of the 

standards proposed in today’s rule is $16.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, 

69 For the annualization methodology, see footnote 13.

203

 
while the benefits are $60 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $29

million in CO2 reductions, and $1.3 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $73 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs and the average SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 2015, the cost 

of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $17.5 million per year in increased equipment 

costs, while the benefits are $81 million per year in reduced operating costs, $29 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $1.7 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $94 million per year.

204
Table V.41 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (TSL 2) for 

Commercial and Industrial Pumps

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

million 2013$/year

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 60 54 67

3% 81 72 93

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

($12.0/t case)** 5% 8 8 9

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

($40.5/t case)** 3% 29 27 31

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

($62.4/t case)** 2.5% 42 39 46

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 

$119/t case)** 3% 89 83 97

NOX Reduction at $2,684/ton**

7% 1.3 1.3 1.4

3% 1.7 1.6 1.9

Total Benefits†

7% plus CO2

range

69 to 150 63 to 138 78 to 166

7% 90 82 100

3% plus CO2

range

91 to 172 81 to 156 104 to 192

3% 112 100 126

Costs

Incremental Equipment Costs

7% 16.9 18.6 17.2

3% 17.5 19.5 17.7

Net Benefits/Costs

Total†

7% plus CO2

range

53 to 133 44 to 119 61 to 148

7% 73 63 83

3% plus CO2

range

74 to 155 62 to 136 86 to 174

3% 94 80 108

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with pumps shipped in 2020−2049. These 

results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2049 from the products purchased in 2020−2049. 

The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the 

standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High 

Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, 

and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the 

Primary Estimate, an increase rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a decline rate in the High Benefits 

Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.F.2.a.

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios 

205
of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 

3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC 

distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC 

with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values 

are added to the full range of CO2 values.

VI. Labeling and Certification Requirements

A. Labeling

In the Framework Document, DOE noted that EPCA includes provisions for 

labeling (42 U.S.C. 6315). EPCA authorizes DOE to establish labeling requirements 

only if certain criteria are met. Specifically, DOE must determine that: (1) labeling in 

accordance with section 6315 is technologically and economically feasible with respect 

to any particular equipment class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from 

such labeling; and (3) labeling in accordance with section 6315 is likely to assist 

consumers in making purchasing decisions. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h)).

If these criteria are met, EPCA specifies certain aspects of equipment labeling that 

DOE must consider in any rulemaking establishing labeling requirements for covered 

equipment. At a minimum, such labels must include the energy efficiency of the affected 

equipment, as tested under the prescribed DOE test procedure. The labeling provisions 

may also consider the addition of other requirements, including: directions for the display 

of the label; a requirement to display on the label additional information related to energy 

efficiency or energy consumption, which may include instructions for maintenance and 

repair of the covered equipment, as necessary to provide adequate information to 

purchasers; and requirements that printed matter displayed or distributed with the 

206
equipment at the point of sale also include the information required to be placed on the 

label. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b) and 42 U.S.C. 6315(c))..

In response to the Framework document, HI and Grundfos supported labeling that 

would include the rated efficiency value of the pump. (HI, No. 25 at p. 11; Grundfos, 

No. 24 at p. 19). Grundfos noted that this would provide transparency to consumers to 

make better purchasing considerations and would not be expected to result in significant 

additional burden. Grundfos added that markings should not conflict with other 

information presently included on nameplates, that additional bossing on the pump 

castings should not be required, but that potentially Energy Guide-type labels could be 

placed on pump packaging prior to shipping. Grundfos also recommended harmonization 

with EU 547. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 19). HI noted that including efficiency on the label 

would allow the buyer or end-user to select the most efficient product available. (HI, No. 

25 at p. 11). The Advocates also noted that development of a DOE test procedure for 

pumps including motors could facilitate a labeling scheme to encourage the greater use of 

pumps with VSDs across a wide horsepower range. (The Advocates, No. 32 at p. 7).

The CIP Working Group recommended labeling requirements in the term sheet. 

(See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, recommendation #12.) Specifically, the working 

group recommended that pumps be labeled based on the configuration in which they are 

sold. Table VI.1 shows the information that the CIP Working Group recommended be 

207
included on a pump nameplate. (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, recommendation 

#12.)

Table VI.1 Labeling Requirements for Pump Nameplate

Bare Pump Bare Pump + Motor Bare Pump + Motor + Controls

PEICL

Model number

Impeller diameter for each 

unit

PEICL

Model number

Impeller diameter for each 

unit

PEIVL

Model number

Impeller diameter for each unit

Note: The impeller diameter referenced is the actual diameter of each unit as sold, not the full impeller 

diameter at which the pump is rated.

DOE has reviewed the recommendations of the working group with respect to the 

three requirements in EPCA restricting the Secretary’s authority to promulgate labeling 

rules. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h)). DOE considered applying these requirements to both the 

pump nameplate and marketing materials.

First, DOE finds that the working group labeling recommendations are 

technologically and economically feasible with respect to each equipment class in this 

rulemaking. Pump manufacturers currently include nameplates on their pumps and it is 

technologically feasible for them to provide energy efficiency information on a 

nameplate as well without presenting a significant incremental burden. Furthermore, as 

the additional information proposed to be added to the nameplate is minimal and, in some 

cases, may already be included on the nameplate of some pump manufacturers, DOE 

believes that the size of the nameplate typically will not be required to increase and, thus, 

there will not be an incremental cost for adding additional information to pump 

208
nameplates.70 Costs of updating marketing materials for pumps that must be redesigned 

to meet the standard were included in the conversion costs for the industry and are 

accounted for in the industry cash-flow analysis results and industry valuation figures in 

section V.B.2. For pumps that do not need to be redesigned to meet the standard, DOE 

estimates that the costs of updating marketing materials to include the labeling 

requirements would be up to $3750 per pump model.

71 In the absence of a standard, this 

would result in additional cost to the industry of approximately $13 million. DOE 

estimates that the investment could result in a loss of INPV compared to a base case with 

no labeling requirement of up to approximately 5%. For the proposed standard, the

additional cost to industry for updating marketing materials for pumps that do not have to 

be redesigned would be approximately $10 million. DOE estimates that the investment 

could result in an additional loss of INPV compared to a base case with no labeling 

requirement of up to approximately 4% beyond that estimated from the proposed 

standard.72Therefore, DOE has determined that establishing labeling requirements would 

be economically feasible.

70 Manufacturers will likely deplete their stock of existing nameplates prior to the compliance date of any 

labeling requirements. Therefore, in order to meet the labeling requirements, they will be buying 

redesigned nameplates – likely at the same cost as the old ones – and then printing new information on 

them – likely at the same cost as previously. 71 HI estimated the average cost for updating marketing (literature, data sheets, curves, pump selection 

tools, sales training, compliance documentation, etc.) for a hydraulic redesign to range from $32,000 for a 

1-hp model to $27,000 for a 200-hp model. DOE assumed $30,000 on average. The marketing costs 

provided by HI were for developing new materials for redesigned pump models. For this exercise only 

literature and data sheets are relevant, which DOE estimated would represent half of the marketing costs. In 

addition, in this case, DOE is estimating the incremental cost for making a few additions to literature rather 

than complete design of new materials. DOE assumed these additions would cost only 25% or less of full 

material development. 

72 Approximately 3500 models are in the scope of this rulemaking. In the absence of the standard, none of 

these models would have to be redesigned and would thus incur $3750 each in costs for updating marketing 

materials. At TSL 2, 25% of pump models would have to be redesigned, and creating new marketing 

materials for these pumps is already accounted for in the MIA. The 75% of pump models that do not have 

to be redesigned would incur $3750 each.

Comment [A33]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

209

 
Second, DOE believes the labeling recommendations proposed by the working 

group will likely result in significant energy savings. The related energy conservation 

standards are expected to save 0.27 quads. Requiring labels that include the rated value 

subject to the standards will increase consumer awareness of the standards. As a result, 

requiring the labels may increase consumer demand for more efficient pumps, thus 

leading to additional savings beyond that calculated for the standards. In addition, the 

labels will make it easier for consumers to compare the expected performance of a bare 

pump to that of a pump with controls, thus increasing the likelihood that a consumer will 

select a pump with controls. Such purchasing decisions will result in additional energy 

savings beyond that of the standard by potentially increasing the market share of pumps 

sold with controls and therefore using less power during operating hours.

Third, DOE finds that the recommended working group labeling requirements are 

likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. By including the rated metric 

on the nameplate and marketing materials, consumers will have the information needed 

to compare performance between pump models, with the assurance that the ratings were 

calculated according to a DOE-specified test procedure. As stated previously, the 

labeling recommendations will assist consumers in making purchasing decisions between 

bare pumps and pumps with controls, by allowing them to fairly accurately estimate the 

potential energy savings from using controls in a variable load situation. As noted 

previously, Grundfos and HI both suggested in comments that labels would assist 

consumers in making purchasing decisions. (Grundfos, No. 24 at p. 19; HI, No. 25 at p. 

210
11). This was also a primary reason the recommendation was made by the working 

group.

DOE also notes that the recommended working group labeling recommendations 

meet the EPCA requirement that labels, at a minimum, include the energy efficiency of 

the equipment to which the rulemaking applies, as tested under the prescribed DOE test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b)). In this case, that information is PEICL or PEIVL, 

depending on pump configuration. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt the labeling 

requirements recommended by the CIP Working Group, as shown in Table VI.1. 

Additionally, DOE proposes that these same labeling requirements be applied to 

marketing materials in addition to the pump nameplate. See 42 U.S.C. 6315(c)(3). 

DOE is tentatively proposing the following requirements for display of 

information: All orientation, spacing, type sizes, type faces, and line widths to display 

this required information shall be the same as or similar to the display of the other 

performance data on the pump's permanent nameplate. The PEICL or PEIVL, as 

appropriate to a given pump model, shall be identified in the form “PEICL ___” or “PEIVL 

___.” The model number shall be in one of the following forms: “Model ____” or 

“Model number ____” or “Model No. ____.” The unit’s impeller diameter shall be in the 

form “Imp. Dia. ____ (in.).” DOE seeks input on these proposed requirements. This is 

identified as Issue 17 in section VIII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

211
DOE is aware that when pump manufacturers sell a bare pump to a distributor, the 

distributor may trim the impeller prior to selling the pump to a customer. Therefore,

DOE requests comment on the feasibility of including the impeller diameter for each unit 

on the nameplate. Specifically, when shipping bare pumps to distributors, would it be 

more appropriate for this field to be left blank and filled in by the distributor? This is 

identified as Issue 18 in section VIII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

B. Certification Requirements

1. Certification Report Requirements

Since pumps are a distinct type of covered equipment under EPCA and would 

have entirely separate reporting requirements from other types of covered equipment, 

DOE proposes to include the reporting requirements in a new section 429.59 within 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 429. This section would also include sampling requirements, 

which are discussed in the test procedure NOPR. Consistent with other types of covered 

products and equipment, the proposed section (10 CFR 429.59) would specify that the 

general certification report requirements contained in 10 CFR 429.12 apply to pumps. 

Proposed additional requirements established in 10 CFR 429.59 would require

manufacturers to supply certain additional information to DOE in certification reports for 

pumps to demonstrate compliance with any energy conservation standards established as 

a result of this rulemaking.

The CIP Working Group recommended that the following data be included in the 

certification reports:

212
• Manufacturer name;

• Model number(s);

• Equipment class;

• PEICL or PEIVL as applicable;

• BEP flow rate and head;

• Rated speed;

• Number of stages tested;

• Full impeller diameter (in.);

• Whether the PEICL or PEIVL is calculated or tested; and

• Input power to the pump at each load point i (Pin

i).

(See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092, recommendation No. 13.)

DOE has reviewed the working group recommendations and made some 

modifications and additions. DOE is proposing that the following recommended items be 

required in certification reports without modifications:

• Manufacturer name;

• Model number(s);

• Equipment class;

• PEICL or PEIVL as applicable;

• Number of stages tested;

• Full impeller diameter (in.); and

• Whether the PEICL or PEIVL is calculated or tested.

213
DOE is proposing that the following recommended items be required in 

certification reports with modifications for clarity relating to units and operating 

conditions:

• BEP flow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) and head in feet when operating at 

nominal speed;

• Rated (tested) speed in revolutions per minute (rpm) at the BEP of the pump; and

• Driver power input at each required load point i (Pin

i), corrected to nominal speed, 

in horsepower (hp).

DOE is proposing that the following additional items be required in certification 

reports to assist with verification:

• Nominal speed for certification in revolutions per minute (rpm) --

o Required to verify equipment class as well as calculations for parameters 

that must be corrected to nominal speed;

• The configuration in which the pump is being rated (i.e., bare pump, a pump sold 

with a motor, or a pump sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous 

controls) --

o Necessary for DOE to determine appropriate test procedure method to 

follow when verifying ratings; and

• For pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards for electric motors at §431.25 other single-phase induction motors (with 

or without controls): Motor horsepower (hp) and nominal motor efficiency, in 

percent (%) --

214
o Necessary for DOE to complete calculations in test procedure when 

verifying ratings.

Finally, DOE is proposing that PERCL or PERVL, as applicable, and pump 

efficiency at BEP be required in certification reports in order to provide additional 

performance information to assist with future regulatory efforts or utility programs 

related to pumps. 

DOE requests comment on modifications or additions to the proposed reporting 

requirements for certification of pumps. DOE requests comment on whether pump 

efficiency at BEP should be required to be included in the certification reports. This is 

identified as Issue 19 in section VIII.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”

2. Definition of Manufacturer

In 10 CFR Part 431, regarding the energy efficiency program for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, manufacturer is defined in section 431.2 as “any 

person who manufactures industrial equipment, including any manufacturer of a 

commercial packaged boiler.” In addition, manufacture means “to manufacture, produce, 

assemble, or import.”

In response to the Framework Document, the CA IOUs and the Advocates 

suggested that DOE define “manufacturer” more broadly such that distributors who 

package pumps with motors for sale would be subject to the standards. (CA IOUs, No. 

Comment [A34]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

215
26 at p. 3; The Advocates, No. 32 at pp. 6-7.) The Advocates added that it would support 

OEMs being subject to standards, but would not support contractors or installers to be 

considered “manufacturers.” (Id.)

Earthjustice noted that based on the definitions in EPCA, if a standard applies to 

pump/motor combinations, connecting or packaging a motor and pump would ordinarily 

count as manufacturing the combined product. (Earthjustice, No. 30 at p. 2.) It also 

added that contractors or installers would not be covered. (Id.)

On the other hand, AHRI recommended that if DOE establishes a regulatory 

regime that includes pump packages with VSDs, that pump manufacturers manage 

compliance of the extended product and that separately sold VFDs remain outside of 

DOE's authority. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2.)

The CIP Working Group also discussed the definition of manufacturer on several 

occasions. (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0014, pp. 32-33, pp. 39-57, and pp. 79-82; 

EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0015, pp. 134, 203-223; EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0062, 

pp. 316-327; and EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0106, pp. 174-176)

DOE has reviewed the comments and notes that it has already proposed a 

definition that would apply when determining which entity constitutes the pump 

manufacturer in a separate rulemaking. DOE refers readers to its proposed test procedure 

for pumps. Today’s proposal would, however, detail the requirements that a pump 

Comment [A35]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

216
manufacturer would need to meet when certifying a given pump as compliant with any 

energy conservation standards that DOE may adopt. These provisions, which would be 

part of 10 CFR Part 429, would detail the general and product-specific information 

relating to each basic model of pump that a manufacturer must submit to the Department 

as part of the certification and compliance report.

C. Enforcement Provisions

DOE has reviewed the enforcement provisions specified in subpart C of 10 CFR 

Part 429 and is proposing that they are appropriate and sufficient for pumps. DOE is 

proposing a single modification to specify that §429.110(e)(ii) on enforcement testing 

would apply to pumps as well as the already listed equipment.

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 

FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993, requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to 

address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The 

problems that today’s standards address are as follows: 

217
(1) The cost of gathering relevant information and difficulties in analyzing it leads 

some consumers to miss opportunities to make cost-effective investments in 

energy efficiency.

(2) In some cases the benefits of more efficient equipment are not realized due to 

misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An example of such a case 

is when the equipment purchase decision is made by a building contractor or 

building owner who does not pay the energy costs.

(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of pumps

that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to public health, environmental protection, and national 

security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global warming.

 In addition, DOE has determined that today’s regulatory action is an economically

“significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. DOE presented to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is part of OMB, a copy of

the draft rule for review along with other documents prepared for this rulemaking, 

including a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). These documents are part of the

rulemaking docket. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be 

found in the technical support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued 

on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011.) EO 13563 is supplemental to and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 

Comment [A36]: Revision made at the request of 

OMB.

218
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are 

required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 

society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 

things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that 

regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, 

such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can 

be made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the 

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible. In its guidance, OIRA has emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

DOE believes that today’s NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net 

benefits are maximized. 

219
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation of a 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 

67 FR 53461, August 16, 2002, DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures 

and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website 

(http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the following IRFA for 

the products that are the subject of this rulemaking.

For manufacturers of pumps, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a 

size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 

30836, 30848, May 15, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544, Sept. 5, 2000, and 

codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/contracting/contracting-officials/smallbusiness-size-standards. Manufacturing of pumps is classified under NAICS 333911, 

220
“Pump and Pumping Equipment Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 500

employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.

1. `Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 

To estimate the number of small business manufacturers of equipment covered by 

this rulemaking, DOE conducted a market survey using available public information to 

identify potential small manufacturers. DOE’s research involved industry trade 

association membership directories (including HI), industry conference exhibitor lists, 

individual company and buyer guide websites, and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers 

reports) to create a list of companies that manufacture products covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE presented its list to manufacturers in MIA interviews and asked 

industry representatives if they were aware of any other small manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews and at DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly-available 

data and contacted select companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small business manufacturer of pumps that would be 

regulated by the proposed standards. DOE screened out companies that do not offer 

products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a “small business,” or 

are foreign-owned and operated. 

DOE identified 86 manufacturers of covered pump products sold in the U.S. 

Thirty- eight of these manufacturers met the 500-employee threshold defined by the SBA 

to qualify as a small business, but only 25 were domestic companies. DOE notes that 

manufacturers interviewed stated that there are potentially a large number of small pumps 

221
manufacturers that serve small regional markets. These unidentified small manufacturers 

are not members of HI and typically have a limited marketing presence. The interviewed 

manufacturers and CIP Working Group participants were not able to name these smaller 

players. Based on this information, it is possible that DOE’s list of 25 small domestic 

players may not include all small U.S. manufacturers in the industry. DOE requests 

comment on the number and names of small manufacturers producing covered 

equipment.

Before issuing this NOPR, DOE interviewed two small business manufacturers of 

pumps. DOE also obtained qualitative information about small business impacts while 

interviewing large manufacturers. Specifically, DOE discussed with large manufacturers 

the extent to which new standards might require small businesses to acquire new 

equipment or cause manufacturing process changes that could destabilize their business.

Responses given by larger manufacturers supported and informed DOE’s description and 

estimate of compliance requirements, which are presented in section VII.B.2. In general, 

DOE found very little information in the public domain about the role of small 

manufacturers in this industry. 

Today’s proposed standards reflect the recommendation of the CIP Working 

Group, which consisted of 16 members, including one small manufacturer. DOE selected 

the 16 members of the working group after issuing a notice of intent to establish a CIP 

Working Group (78 FR 44036) and receiving 19 nominations for membership. DOE 

Comment [A37]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

222
notes that the three nominated parties who were not selected for the working group did 

not represent small businesses. Prior to the formation of the CIP Working Group, DOE 

issued an RFI (76 FR 34192), a Framework Document (78 FR 7304), and held a public 

meeting on February 20, 2013, to discuss the Framework Document in detail -- all of 

which publicly laid out DOE’s efforts to set out standards for pumps. The leading 

industry trade association, HI, was engaged in each of these stages and helped spread 

awareness of the rulemaking process to all of its members, which includes both small and 

large manufacturers73. 

DOE requests additional information on the number of small businesses in the 

industry, the names of those small businesses, and their role in the market. This matter is 

identified as Issue 20 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of 

this NOPR.

DOE made key assumptions about the market share and product offerings of 

small manufacturers in its analysis. Specifically, DOE estimated that small 

manufacturers accounted for approximately 36% of the total industry model offerings.

DOE requests data on the market share of small manufacturers and on the number 

of model offerings from small manufacturers. This matter is identified as Issue 21 under 

“Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR.

73 HI membership includes 48 manufacturers of product within the scope of this rulemaking, of which 10 

are small domestic manufacturers.

Comment [A38]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

Comment [A39]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

Comment [A40]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

Comment [A41]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

223

 
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

At TSL 2, the level proposed in today’s notice, DOE estimates total conversion 

costs of $0.8 million for an average small manufacturer, compared to total conversion 

costs of $1.4 million for an average large manufacturer. DOE notes that it estimates a 

lower total conversion cost for small manufacturers, because of the previous assumption 

that small manufacturers offer fewer models than their larger competitors, which means 

small manufacturers would likely have fewer product models to redesign. DOE’s 

conversion cost estimates were based on industry data collected by HI (see section IV.C.5

for more information on the derivation of industry conversion costs). DOE applied the 

same per-model product conversion costs for both large and small manufacturers. DOE 

requests comment on the difference in the per-model redesign costs between small and 

large manufacturers. Table VI.1 below shows the relative impacts of conversion costs on 

small manufacturers relative to large manufacturers.

DOE requests data on the cost of hydraulic redesigns for a small manufacturer.

This matter is identified as Issue 22 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in 

section VIII.E of this NOPR. Comment [A42]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

224
Table VII.1 Impacts of Conversion Costs on a Small Manufacturer at the Proposed 

Standard

Capital Conversion 

Cost as a Percentage 

of Annual Capital 

Expenditures

Product Conversion 

Cost as a Percentage 

of Annual R&D 

Expense

Total Conversion 

Cost as a 

Percentage of 

Annual Revenue

Total Conversion 

Cost as a 

Percentage of 

Annual EBIT

Average 

Large 

Manufacturer

303% 1579% 32% 582%

Average 

Small 

Manufacturer

374% 1013% 25% 464%

The total conversion costs are approximately 25% of revenue and 464% of 

earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) for a small manufacturer. For large 

manufacturers, the total conversion costs are approximately 32% of revenue and 582% of 

EBIT. These initial findings indicate that small manufacturers face conversion costs that 

are proportionate relative to larger competitors. 

However, as noted in section V.B.2.a, the GRIM free cash flow results in 2019

indicated that some manufacturers may need to access the capital markets in order to fund 

conversion costs directly related to the proposed standard. Given that small 

manufacturers have greater difficulty securing outside capital74 and that the necessary 

conversion costs are not insignificant to the size of a small business, it is possible the 

small manufacturers will be forced to retire a greater portion of product models than large 

competitors. Also, smaller companies often have a higher cost of borrowing due to 

higher risk on the part of investors, largely attributed to lower cash flows and lower per 

74 Simon, Ruth, and Angus Loten, "Small-Business Lending Is Slow to Recover," Wall Street Journal, 

August 14, 2014. Accessed August 2014, available at http://online.wsj.com/articles/small-businesslending-is-slow-to-recover-1408329562. 

225

 
unit profitability. In these cases, small manufacturers may observe higher costs of debt 

than larger manufacturers. 

Though conversion costs are similar in magnitude for small and large

manufacturers, small manufacturers may not have the same resources to make the 

required conversions. For example, some small pump manufacturers may not have the 

technical expertise to perform hydraulic redesigns in-house. These small manufacturers 

would need to hire outside consultants to support their re-design efforts. This could be a 

disadvantage relative to companies that have internal resources and personnel for the 

redesign process. 

DOE requests data on the cost of capital for small manufacturers to better 

quantify how small manufacturers might be disadvantaged relative to large competitors. 

DOE also invites comment on DOE’s calculations in Table VII.1, which show that the 

relative impact of conversion costs on the average small business, as estimated as a 

percentage of annual research and development expenses and total revenue, would be less 

than the impact felt by average large manufacturer. This matter is identified as Issue 23

under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR. 

DOE requests comment and data on the impact of the proposed standard on small 

business manufacturers. This matter is identified as Issue 24 under “Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment” in section VIII.E of this NOPR.

Comment [A43]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

Comment [A44]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

226
3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations

DOE is unaware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the rule being considered today.

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The primary alternatives to the proposed rule are the other TSLs besides the one 

being considered today, TSL 2. DOE explicitly considered the role of manufacturers, 

including small manufacturers, in its selection of TSL 2 rather than TSLs 3, 4, or 5. With 

respect to TSL 5, DOE estimated that while there would be significant consumer benefits 

stemming from the projected energy savings of 1.32 quads (ranging from $1.51 billion 

using a 7% discount rate to $4.47 using a 3% discount rate) along with emissions 

reductions, the overall impacts would yield over a 288 percent drop in INPV, which 

would create negative LCC benefits and a significant burden on the industry that 

outweighed the potential benefits at TSL 5. Similarly, with respect to TSL 4, DOE 

projected that in spite of the 0.91 quads of energy savings (and accompanying consumer 

benefits ranging from $1.13 billion using a 7-percent discount rate to $3.23 billion using 

a 3-percent discount rate) along with emission reduction benefits, the potential negative 

impacts on industry – estimated to be as much as a 170 percent drop in INPV – were 

sufficient to weigh against the adoption of this TSL. Finally, with respect to TSL 3, DOE 

concluded that the estimated 0.56 quads of energy savings (and accompanying consumer 

benefits ranging from $0.77 billion using a 7-percent discount rate to $2.13 billion using 

a 3-percent discount rate) along with emission reduction benefits, the potential negative 

impacts on industry – a nearly 82 percent drop in INPV – weighed against the adopting 

227
this TSL. (Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD contains additional information about the 

impact of this rulemaking on manufacturers.) Accordingly, DOE is not adopting any of 

these alternatives and, instead, is proposing the standards set forth in this rulemaking. 

(See chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD for further detail on the policy alternatives DOE 

considered.) 

In addition to the other TSLs being considered, chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD and 

section V.B.7 include reports on a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). For the pumps that 

would be affected by this rulemaking, the RIA discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) consumer rebates; (2) consumer tax credits; (3) manufacturer tax credits; 

(4) voluntary energy efficiency targets; and (5) bulk government purchases. While these 

alternatives may mitigate to some varying extent the economic impacts on small entities 

compared to the standards, DOE determined that the energy savings of these alternatives 

are significantly smaller than those that would be expected to result from adoption of the 

proposed standard levels (ranging from approximately 0.2 percent to 78 percent of the 

primary energy savings from the proposed standards). 

DOE notes that if a manufacturer finds that meeting the standard for pumps would 

cause special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens, the manufacturer may 

petition the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption 

from the standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 of the DOE 

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. 

OHA has the authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a 

Comment [A45]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

228
manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, 

or unfair distribution of burdens.

DOE seeks comment and, in particular, data on the impacts of this rulemaking on 

small businesses. (See Issue 24 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in 

section VIII.E. of this NOPR.)

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

In the event that DOE adopts its proposed standards, pump manufacturers would 

need to certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers would need to test their 

products according to the applicable DOE test procedures for pumps that DOE may adopt 

to measure the energy efficiency of this equipment, including any amendments adopted 

for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial 

equipment, including pumps. 76 FR 12422, March 7, 2011. The collection-ofinformation requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has 

been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden 

for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

Comment [A46]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

229
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has 

determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of actions included in 

Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of 

a CX. See 10 CFR Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)-(5). The 

proposed rule fits within the category of actions, because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, 

and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE 

has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule. 

DOE’s CX determination for this proposed rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999, imposes 

certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive 

Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting 

230
any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully 

assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have 

an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. 

EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 

conservation for the products that are the subject of today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent and, based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297.) No further action is required by Executive Order 

13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on 

Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 

promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, 

if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides 

a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 

231
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; 

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under 

any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 

requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and has determined 

that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 

1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 

sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),

(b).) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed 

“significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before 

establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

232
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process 

for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy statement 

is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

Although today’s proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. 

Specifically, the proposed rule will likely result in a final rule that could require 

expenditures of $100 million or more. Such expenditures may include: (1) investment in 

research and development and in capital expenditures by pump manufacturers in the 

years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new standards, and (2) 

incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency pumps, 

starting on the compliance date for the applicable standard..

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed 

rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to 

a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the NOPR and the “Regulatory 

Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for this proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

233
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider 

a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a 

written statement under section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule, unless DOE publishes an explanation 

for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As 

authorized by 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A), today’s proposed rule would establish energy 

conservation standards that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency for pumps that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for today’s proposed 

rule.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment 

for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE 

has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859, Mar. 18, 

234
1988, that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of 

information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452, Feb. 22, 

2002, and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446, Oct. 7, 2002. DOE has 

reviewed today’s NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001, requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as 

any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 

rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 

significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must 

give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use 

235
should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that today’s regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for pumps, is not a significant energy action, because the 

proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 

OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the 

proposed rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664, Jan. 14, 2005. The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by 

the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 

the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin 

defines as scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does 

have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 

decisions. 70 FR 2667.

236
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews 

of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses, and has prepared 

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, 

and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The 

“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report,” dated February 

2007, has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

VIII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and 

ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this notice. If you plan to attend the public 

meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As explained in the ADDRESSES section, foreign 

nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening 

procedures.

In addition, participants may attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities 

237
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE’s website. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For Distribution

Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request 

that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons 

may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF 

(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the 

appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. 

The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before 

the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to 

receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to 

enable DOE staff to make follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also 

use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 

of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings 

and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations 

and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the 

public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.

238
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for 

prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make 

a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of 

specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly 

on any general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to 

clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants 

should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning 

these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will 

accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above 

procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.

A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this notice. In addition, any 

person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

239
D. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule 

before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the DATES 

section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments, 

data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will 

be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not 

be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly 

because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in 

the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that 

you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in 

any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see 

only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and 

any documents submitted with the comments. 

240
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will 

waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, 

see the Confidential Business Information section below.

DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if 

large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 

viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, 

email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not 

be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please 

241
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No 

facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

 

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should 

be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) 

file format. Provide documents that are not secured, are written in English, and are free 

of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form 

of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF, or as one form letter 

with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment 

processing and posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from 

public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two wellmarked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked nonconfidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these 

documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

242
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why 

such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the 

information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning 

its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person 

which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the 

information would be contrary to the public interest.

It is DOE’s policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, as 

received and without change, including any personal information provided in the 

comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning 

the following issues: 

1. Whether all RS-V models sold in the United States are based on a global 

platform.

2. Whether there are any pump models that would pass the proposed 

standard at a nominal speed of 3600 but fail at a nominal speed of 1800 if the same Cvalues were used for each equipment class.

243
3. Whether the market distribution channels include all appropriate 

intermediate steps, and the estimated market share of each channel.

4. Information and data on average annual operating hours for the pump 

types and applications in the scope of this rulemaking.

5. Information and data on typical load profiles for the pump types and 

applications in the scope of this rulemaking.

6. The percentage of pumps in scope operated by each fuel type other than 

electricity (e.g., diesel, gasoline, liquid propane gas, or natural gas) and the efficiency 

or losses of each type of non-electric driver, including transmission losses if any, that 

would allow DOE to estimate the fuel use and savings of pumps sold with nonelectric drivers. 

7. The most appropriate trend to use for real (inflation-adjust) commercial 

and industrial pump prices.

8. Whether any of the efficiency levels considered in this NOPR might lead 

to an increase in installation costs, and if so, data regarding the magnitude of the 

increased cost for each relevant efficiency level.

9. DOE seeks comment on whether new standards would be likely to affect 

shipments. 

Comment [A47]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

244
10. The penetration rate of VFDs relative to the scope of this rulemaking, the 

average power reduction from use of a VFD, the “effectiveness rate” of a VFD, the 

percent of shipments with trimmed impellers, and the average percent impeller trim.

11. Whether a rebound effect should be included in the determination of 

annual energy savings and, if so, data to assist in calculation of the rebound effect.

12. DOE requests comment on the capital conversion costs and product 

conversion costs estimated for each TSL.

13. DOE requests comment on the potential impacts on manufacturer 

employment and the specific drivers of any expected change in production line 

employment.

14. DOE requests comments and data on capacity constraints at each TSL –

including production capacity constraints, engineering resource constraints, and 

testing capacity constraints. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether the 

proposed compliance date allows for a sufficient conversion period to make the 

equipment design and facility updates necessary to meet a new standard.

15. DOE requests comments the cumulative regulatory burden on 

manufacturers. Specifically, DOE seeks input on any product-specific Federal 

regulations that go into effect within three years of the proposed effective date and 

recommendations on how DOE may be able to align varying regulations in order to 

mitigate cumulative burden.

245
16. DOE seeks comment on the impacts, if any, there would be on the level of 

utility and available features currently offered by manufacturers with respect to the 

pumps that would be regulated under this proposal. 

17. DOE seeks input on the requirements for display of required information 

on labels.

18. DOE seeks comment on the feasibility of including the impeller diameter 

for each unit on the nameplate. Specifically, when shipping bare pumps to 

distributors, would it be more appropriate for this field to be left blank and filled in by 

the distributor?

19. DOE requests comment on modifications or additions to the proposed 

reporting requirements for certification of pumps. DOE requests comment on 

whether pump efficiency at BEP should be required to be included in the certification 

reports.

20. DOE requests additional information on the number of small businesses in 

the industry, the names of those small businesses, and their role in the market.

21. DOE requests data on the market share of small manufacturers and on the 

number of model offerings from small manufacturers.

22. DOE requests data on the cost of hydraulic redesigns for a small 

manufacturer.

Comment [A48]: Revisions made at the request 

of OMB.

Comment [A49]: DOE requests data on the cost 

of capital for small manufacturers to better quantify 

how small manufacturers might be disadvantaged 

relative to large competitors. DOE also invites 

comment on DOE’s calculations in Table VII.1, 

which show that the relative impact of conversion 

costs on the average small business, as estimated as a 

percentage of annual research and development 

expenses and total revenue, would be less than the 

impact felt by average large manufacturer.

246
23. DOE requests data on the cost of capital for small manufacturers to better 

quantify how small manufacturers might be disadvantaged relative to large 

competitors. DOE also invites comment on DOE’s calculations in Table VII.1, which 

show that the relative impact of conversion costs on the average small business, as 

estimated as a percentage of annual research and development expenses and total 

revenue, would be less than the impact felt by average large manufacturer.

24. DOE requests comment and data on the impact of the proposed standard 

on small business manufacturers.

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 429

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, small 

businesses.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on XXXXX, 20XX

Comment [A50]: DOE requests data on the cost 

of capital for small manufacturers to better quantify 

how small manufacturers might be disadvantaged 

relative to large competitors. DOE also invites 

comment on DOE’s calculations in Table VII.1, 

which show that the relative impact of conversion 

costs on the average small business, as estimated as a 

percentage of annual research and development 

expenses and total revenue, would be less than the 

impact felt by average large manufacturer.

247
________________________________

David T. Danielson

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

248
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 

431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as 

set forth below: 

PART 429 - CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT

1. Part 429 subpart B, section 429.12(13) shall be amended to read as follows:

§429.12 General requirements applicable to certification reports.

* * * * *

(13) Product specific information listed in §§429.14 through 429.59 of this chapter.

* * * * *

2. Part 429, subpart B, section 429.59 shall be amended to add a new subsection (b) to 

read as follows:

§429.59 Commercial and Industrial Pumps.

* * * * *

(a) Certification reports. 

(1) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to pumps; and

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following 

public product-specific information:

249
(i) For bare pumps, pumps sold with drivers other than electric motors, and pumps 

sold with single-phase electric motors: manufacturer name; model number(s); equipment 

class from the table in §431.465(b); PEICL; PERCL; the rated (tested) speed of rotation in 

revolutions per minute (rpm) at the best efficiency point (BEP) of the pump; the nominal 

speed of rotation in revolutions per minute (rpm ); pump total head in feet (ft.) at BEP 

and nominal speed; volume per unit time (flow rate) in gallons per minute (gpm) at BEP 

and nominal speed; calculated driver power input at each load point i (Pin

i), corrected to 

nominal speed, in horsepower (hp); pump efficiency at BEP in percent (%); full impeller 

diameter in inches (in.); the pump configuration (i.e., bare pump); for RS-V and VT-S 

pumps, the number of stages tested; and for VT-S pumps, the bowl diameter in inches 

(in.).

(i) For pumps sold with electric motors not equipped with continuous or noncontinuous controls: manufacturer name; model number(s); equipment class from the 

table in §431.465(b); PEICL; PERCL; the rated (tested) speed of rotation in revolutions per 

minute (rpm) at the best efficiency point (BEP) of the pump; the nominal speed of 

rotation in revolutions per minute (rpm ); pump total head in feet (ft.) at BEP and 

nominal speed; volume per unit time (flow rate) in gallons per minute (gpm) at BEP and 

nominal speed; driver power input at each load point i (Pin

i), corrected to nominal speed, 

in horsepower (hp); pump efficiency at BEP in percent (%); full impeller diameter in 

inches (in.); whether the PEICL is calculated or tested; the pump configuration (i.e., pump 

sold with an electric motor); for RS-V and VT-S pumps, number of stages tested; for VTS pumps, the bowl diameter in inches (in.); and for pumps sold with electric motors 

250
regulated by DOE’s energy conservation standards for electric motors at §431.25 other 

single-phase induction motors, the nominal motor efficiency in percent (%) and the motor 

horsepower (hp) for the motor with which the pump is being rated

(iii) For pumps sold with electric motors, other than single-phase induction 

motors, and continuous or non-continuous controls: manufacturer name; model 

number(s); equipment class from the table in §431.465(b); PEIVL; PERVL; the rated 

(tested) speed of rotation in revolutions per minute (rpm) at the best efficiency point 

(BEP) of the pump; the nominal speed of rotation for certification in revolutions per 

minute (rpm); pump total head in feet (ft.) at BEP and nominal speed; volume per unit 

time (flow rate) in gallons per minute (gpm) at BEP and nominal speed; driver power 

input (measured as the input power to the driver and controls) at each load point i (Pin

i), 

corrected to nominal speed, in horsepower (hp); pump efficiency at BEP in percent (%); 

full impeller diameter in inches (in.); whether the PEIVL is calculated or tested; the pump 

configuration (i.e., pump sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls); 

for RS-V and VT-S pumps, the number of stages tested; for VT-S pumps, the bowl 

diameter in inches (in.); and for pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for electric motors at §431.25, the nominal motor 

efficiency in percent (%) and the motor horsepower (hp) for the motor with which the 

pump is being rated.

3. In Subpart C of Part 429, §429.110(e)(ii) is amended to read as follows:

§429.110 Enforcement testing.

251
* * * * *

(ii) For automatic commercial ice makers; commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers; refrigerated bottled or canned vending machines; commercial 

HVAC and WH equipment; and pumps, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more 

than four units and follow the sampling plans in appendix B of this subpart (Sampling 

Plan for Enforcement Testing of Covered Equipment and Certain Low-Volume Covered 

Products). If fewer than four units of a basic model are available for testing when the 

manufacturer receives the notice, then:

* * * * *

PART 431 - ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for Part 431 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

2. In Subpart Y of Part 431, a new section § 431.465 is added to read as follows:

§431.465 Pumps energy conservation standards and their compliance dates.

(a) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, “PEICL” means the constant 

load pump energy index and “PEIVL” means the variable load pump energy index, both as 

determined in accordance with the test procedure in §431.464. For the purposes of 

paragraph (c) of this section, “BEP” means the best efficiency point as determined in 

accordance with the test procedure in § 431.464.

252
(b) Each pump that is manufactured starting on [INSERT DATE 4 YEARS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and that: (1) is in one of the equipment 

classes listed in the table below; (2) meets the definition of a clean water pump in § 

431.462; and (3) conforms to the characteristics listed in paragraph (c) must have a PEICL

or PEIVL rating of not more than 1.00 using the appropriate C-value in the table below:

Equipment Class1 Maximum PEI2 CValue3

ESCC.1800.CL 1.00 128.47

ESCC.3600.CL 1.00 130.42

ESCC.1800.VL 1.00 128.47

ESCC.3600.VL 1.00 130.42

ESFM.1800.CL 1.00 128.85

ESFM.3600.CL 1.00 130.99

ESFM.1800.VL 1.00 128.85

ESFM.3600.VL 1.00 130.99

IL.1800.CL 1.00 129.30

IL.3600.CL 1.00 133.84

IL.1800.VL 1.00 129.30

IL.3600.VL 1.00 133.84

RS-V.1800.CL 1.00 129.63

RS-V.3600.CL 1.00 133.20

RS-V.1800.VL 1.00 129.63

RS-V.3600.VL 1.00 133.20

VT-S.1800.CL 1.00 134.13

VT-S.3600.CL 1.00 134.13

VT-S.1800.VL 1.00 134.13

VT-S.3600.VL 1.00 134.13 1

Equipment class designations consist of a combination (in sequential order 

separated by periods) of: (1) an equipment family (ESCC = end suction closecoupled, ESFM = end suction frame mounted, IL = in-line, RS-V = radially split,

multi-stage, vertical, in-line casing, diffuser, VT-S = vertical turbine 

submersible); (2) nominal speed of rotation (1800 = 1800 rpm, 3600 = 3600 

rpm); and (3) an operating mode (CL = constant load, VL = variable load).

Determination of the operating mode is determined using the test procedure in 

appendix A to subpart Y of part 431.

2

For equipment classes ending in .CL, the relevant PEI is PEICL. For equipment 

classes ending in .VL, the relevant PEI is PEIVL. 3

The C-values shown in this table must be used in the equation for PERSTD when 

calculating PEICL or PEIVL, as described in section II.B of appendix A to subpart 

Y of part 431.

253
(c) The energy conservation standards in paragraph (b) of this section apply only 

to pumps with the following characteristics:

(1) Shaft power of at least 1 hp but no greater than 200 hp at the best efficiency point 

(BEP) at full impeller diameter for the number of stages required for testing (see 

appendix A to subpart Y of part 431),

(2) Flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at BEP at full impeller diameter,

(3) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP at full impeller diameter,

(4) Design temperature range from -10 to 120 °C,

(5) Designed to operate with either: (1) a 2- or 4-pole induction motor, or (2) a noninduction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of 

rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute and/or 1,440 and 2,160 

revolutions per minute, and

(6) For VT-S pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter.

(7) Except that the energy efficiency standards in paragraph (b) of this section do not 

apply to the following pumps:

A. Fire pumps

B. Self-priming pumps 

C. Prime-assist pumps 

D. Sealless pumps

E. Pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50, 

“Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities” 

254
F. Pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military 

Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval 

Shipboard Use” (as amended).

* * * * *

3. In Subpart Y of Part 431, a new section § 431.466 is added to read as follows:

§431.466 Pumps labeling requirements.

(a) Pump nameplate—(1) Required information. The permanent nameplate of a 

pump for which standards are prescribed in § 431.465 must be marked clearly with the 

following information:

(i) For bare pumps and pumps sold with electric motors but not continuous or noncontinuous controls, the rated pump energy index – constant load (PEICL) as determined 

pursuant to § 431.464, and for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous 

controls, the rated pump energy index – variable load (PEIVL) as determined pursuant to §

431.464; 

(ii) The model number; and

(iii) The unit’s actual impeller diameter, as distributed in commerce.

(2) Display of required information. All orientation, spacing, type sizes, type faces, 

and line widths to display this required information shall be the same as or similar to the 

display of the other performance data on the pump's permanent nameplate. The PEICL or 

PEIVL, as appropriate to a given pump model, shall be identified in the form “PEICL ___” 

255
or “PEIVL ___.” The model number shall be in one of the following forms: “Model 

____” or “Model number ____” or “Model No. ____.” The unit’s impeller diameter shall 

be in the form “Imp. Dia. ____ (in.).” 

(b) Disclosure of efficiency information in marketing materials. (1) The same 

information that must appear on a pump’s permanent nameplate pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, shall also be prominently displayed:

(i) On each page of a catalog that lists the pump; and

(ii) In other materials used to market the pump.

256