1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov

Test Procedures

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 

Ceiling Fans

Energy Conservation Standards

Preliminary Analysis for Ceiling Fans

November 19, 2014

Lucy deButts

Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

TP: EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050

CF2013TP0050@ee.doe.gov

ECS: EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045

CeilingFan2012STD0045@

ee.doe.gov
2

Welcome

• Introductions (around the room)

• Role of the Facilitator

• Ground Rules

- Speak one at a time.

- Say your name for the record – there will be a complete transcript of 

this meeting.

- Be concise – share the ‘air-time.’

- Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebar 

conversations.

- Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand” to be 

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items

• Agenda Review

• Opening Remarks
3

Public Meeting Agenda: Morning

9:00 – 9:10 am Welcome and Introductions

Ceiling Fan Proposed Test Procedures

9:10 – 9:30 am Opening Statements; TP Regulatory History; Rulemaking Overview

9:30 – 10:00 am Covered Products

10:00 – 10:30 am Existing Test Procedure; Proposed Metric

10:30 – 10:40 am Break

10:40 – 11:50 am Proposed Ceiling Fan Test Procedures

11:50 am – 12:00 pm Closing Remarks

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch
4

Public Meeting Agenda: Afternoon

Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Standards Preliminary Analysis 

1:00 – 1:20 pm Opening Statements; ECS Regulatory History; Rulemaking Overview

1:20 – 1:30 pm Scope; Market & Technology Assessment

1:30 – 1:45 pm Screening Analysis 

1:45 – 2:15 pm Engineering Analyses

2:15 – 2:25 pm Break

2:25 – 2:55 pm Markups; Energy Use; Life Cycle Cost Analyses

2:55 – 3:30 pm Shipments; National Impact Analyses

3:30 – 3:40 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

3:40 – 3:50 pm NOPR Analyses

3:50 – 4:00 pm Closing Remarks and Adjourn
5

Listening via the Webcast

• DOE is broadcasting this meeting live over the Internet. 

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stakeholders that 

are unable to attend the public meeting in person. 

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in and view the 

slides.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comments after 

the public meeting. 
6

Proposed Ceiling Fan (CF) Test Procedures
7

Issue for Discussion

Issue box numbering corresponds to the list of issues published at the end of 

the Test Procedure NOPR, available at regulations.gov, under docket number:

EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050, at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050

The deadline for submitting comments on the Test Procedure NOPR is:

December 31, 2014

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information 

concerning the proposed CFs test procedures. Issues that 

correspond to those raised in DOE’s published material will be 

numbered in accordance with that material. Whether invited by an 

issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’s 

analysis.
8

How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the CF test procedure rulemaking by:

– Test Procedure for Ceiling Fans;

– Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AD10.

• Email: CF2013TP0050@ee.doe.gov

Postal: Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE-5B

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0121

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Suite 600

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20024

Tel: 202 586-2945

Test Procedure NOPR Comment Period closes: December 31, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT
9

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening 

remarks or statements at this time.
10

CFs TP Rulemaking Schedule

Milestone Date

Test Procedure NOPR published

Beginning of 75-day comment period October 17, 2014

End of 75-day comment period December 31, 2014

Projected date of Final Rule for CF TP Q3 2015

Test Procedure effective date (projected) for CFs Q3 2015

2015 2016
11

Regulatory History – Test Procedure

• Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) establishes 

the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,” which includes CFs.

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amended EPCA and established 

energy conservation standards for CFs, as well as requirements for the 

CF test procedures.

• EPAct 2005 required the CF test procedure be based on the “Energy Star 

Testing Facility Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility and 

Performing the Solid State Test Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling 

Fans,” Version 1.1.

• On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule in the Federal 

Register for test procedures for CFs. 71 FR 71340. 

• DOE is conducting these test procedure rulemakings for CFs pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(r).
12

Regulatory History – Test Procedure

• The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) set forth 

requirements for test procedures:

• At least once every 7 years DOE must conduct an evaluation of all 

covered products and either amend the test procedures or publish a 

determination in the Federal Register not to amend them.

• For test procedures of covered products that do not fully account for 

standby-mode and off-mode energy consumption, EISA 2007 directs 

DOE to amend its test procedures to account for standby-mode and offmode energy consumption, unless it is technically infeasible to do so.

• The existing test procedures for CFs are specified in Appendix U to 

Subpart B of part 430 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR).
13

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
14

Covered Products: Scope and Applicability

• The test procedures apply to CFs that meet the statutory definition, where 

EPCA defines a CF as “a non-portable device that is suspended from a ceiling 

for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades.” 

(42 USC§6291)

• DOE is proposing to reinterpret the statutory definition of a CF to 

incorporate hugger CFs.

• DOE proposes to clarify that multi-mount CFs and high-volume CFs meet the 

statutory definition of a CF.

• The current and proposed test procedures 

• do not apply to centrifugal fans.

• do not apply to air circulators (or air circulating fan heads) that are 

typically mounted on a pedestal but also include wall, ceiling, or I-beam 

mounting brackets.
15

Covered Products: Scope and Applicability

Issue 1: Reinterpretation of Statutory Definition of CF

DOE is reinterpreting the statutory definition of a CF to include 

hugger CFs and clarifying that the definition includes multi-mount 

CFs. DOE notes that CFLKs attached to hugger CFs would become 

covered CFLKs under this reinterpretation. DOE invites comment on 

this reinterpretation and clarification.

Issue 2: Inclusion of High-Volume CFs

DOE is also clarifying that high-volume CFs are considered CFs and 

covered under this rulemaking. DOE invites comment on this 

clarification.

Issue 3: Exclusion of Centrifugal Fans from Test Procedure

DOE is proposing interpreting centrifugal fans to fall outside of the 

scope of this rulemaking. DOE invites comment on this 

interpretation.
16

Covered Products: CF Categories

• DOE proposes to define two CF categories that will be tested in different 

ways: low-volume CFs and high-volume CFs.

A low-volume CF must be less than or equal to 7 feet in diameter. Additionally, it must 

have a blade thickness greater than or equal to 3.2 mm at the edge and a maximum tip 

speed less than or equal to the limit in Table 1 OR provide a maximum airflow volume 

less than 5,000 CFM. 

A high-volume CF is either greater than 7 feet in diameter, OR has a blade thickness of 

less than 3.2 mm at the edge or a maximum tip speed that exceeds the threshold in 

Table 1 while providing a maximum airflow volume greater than 5,000 CFM. 

Table 1 is based on the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) CF safety standard (UL 

Standard 507-1999, “UL Standard for Safety for Electric Fans”).

Airflow

Direction

Thickness (t) of edges of blades Maximum speed at tip of blades

mm inch m/s feet per minute

Downward-Only 4.8 > t ≥ 3.2 (3/16 > t ≥ 1/8) 16.3 (3200)

Downward-Only t ≥ 4.8 (t ≥ 3/16) 20.3 (4000)

Reversible 4.8 > t ≥ 3.2 (3/16 > t ≥ 1/8) 12.2 (2400)

Reversible t ≥ 4.8 (t ≥ 3/16) 16.3 (3200)

Table 1: Low-Volume CFs, 7 Feet or Less in Diameter
17

Covered Products: CF Categories

The classification is based on:

1) Reversible or forward-only

2) Blade span,

3) Max airflow volume,

4) Blade edge thickness, and

5) Max tip speed
18

Covered Products: Proposed Definitions

• DOE proposes to define three other CF categories:

• Hugger: “A ceiling fan where the lowest point on the fan blades is no 

more than ten inches from the ceiling.”

• Standard: “A ceiling fan where the lowest point on the fan blades is 

more than ten inches from the ceiling.”

• Multi-mount: “A ceiling fan that can be mounted in both the standard 

and hugger ceiling fan configurations.”

• NOTE: To meet DOE’s definition of a multi-mount CF, a fan must be capable 

of being mounted in configurations that meet both DOE’s definition of a 

hugger and a standard CF. A CF that can be mounted at more than one 

height does not necessarily qualify as a multi-mount CF.

Issue 4: Proposed Definitions 

DOE invites comment on the proposed definitions for low-volume CFs, highvolume CFs, hugger CFs, standard CFs, and multi-mount CFs.
19

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
20

DOE’s Current Test Procedure

• DOE's test procedure for CFs is codified in Appendix U to subpart B of 

part 430 of Title 10 of the CFR.

• The current test procedure references the “ENERGY STAR Testing 

Facility Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility and Performing 

the Solid State Test Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans,” 

version 1.1.

• The ENERGY STAR test method referenced 

in DOE’s test procedure is no longer current.
21

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
22

Proposed Metric

• DOE proposes to apply a single metric based on airflow efficiency to 

all CFs.

• For low-volume CFs, DOE is proposing to use a weighted average of the 

airflow and power consumption at high and low fan speeds.

• For high-volume CFs, DOE is proposing to use the airflow and power 

consumption at high fan speed only.
23

Proposed Metric

• DOE proposes to apply a single metric based on airflow efficiency to all 

CFs.

• For all CFs with standby functionality (including CFs with a light kit), DOE 

is proposing to incorporate standby power consumption into the overall 

airflow efficiency metric. 

• DOE is not proposing to include off-mode power consumption in the 

metric, because DOE believes that CFs do not consume power in off mode.

EPCA defines “standby mode” as the condition in which an energy-using product: 

1. is connected to a main power source, and

2. offers one or more of the following user-oriented or protective functions: 

i. To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other functions (including active mode) 

by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer. 

ii. Continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks), or 

sensor-based functions. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) 

“Off mode” is the condition in which the CF is connected to a main power source and is not 

providing any standby or active mode function. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))
24

Proposed Metric: Operating Hours

• For low-volume CFs, DOE proposes to use the daily national-average 

hours of operation reported in the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory report titled “Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light Kit Use in 

the U.S.” as the basis for weighting energy consumption at high and 

low speed.

• For high-volume CFs, DOE estimated operating hours based on 

feedback from manufacturers

Daily Operating Hours for Low-Volume CFs

Setting/Speed No Standby With Standby

High Speed 4.2 4.2

Low Speed 2.2 2.2

Standby Mode 0.0 17.6

Off Mode 17.6 0.0

Daily Operating Hours for High-Volume CFs

Setting/Speed No Standby With Standby

Active Mode 12.0 12.0

Standby Mode 0.0 12.0

Off Mode 12.0 0.0
25

Proposed Metric: Efficiency Equation

• To calculate the efficiency of low-volume CFs, DOE proposes to use 

the following equation:

CF Efficiency =

 i=H,L CFMi × OHi

(WSb× OHSb) + i=H,L Wi × OHi

• To calculate the efficiency of high-volume CFs, DOE proposes to use 

the following equation:

CF Efficiency =

CFMH × OHA

(WSb× OHSb) + (WH× OHA)

Low-Volume CF Equation Variables

CFMi = airflow at a given speed

OHi = operating hours at a given speed

Wi = power consumption at a given speed

H = high speed

L = low speed

OHSb = operating hours in standby mode

WSb = power consumption in standby mode

High-Volume CF Equation Variables

CFMH = airflow at high speed

OHA = operating hours in active mode

WH = power consumption at high speed

OHSb = operating hours in standby mode

WSb = power consumption in standby mode
26

Proposed Metric

Issue 5: Standby Power Consumption

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to incorporate 

standby power consumption into the CF efficiency metric.

Issue 6: Assignment of Standby Power Consumption

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to assign all standby 

power consumption for a remote receiver that controls both a CF 

and light kit to the CF.

Issue 7: Operating Hours

DOE seeks comment on its proposed operating hours for calculating 

CF efficiency for low-volume CFs.

Issue 8: Operating Hours for High-Volume CFs

DOE seeks comment and any available data on operating hours for 

high-volume CFs.
27

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
28

Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

• DOE proposes to modify the current test procedure for CFs to 

address the following issues:

1. to clarify that low-volume CFs should be tested at high and low 

speeds, 

2. to eliminate the requirement to use a test cylinder,

3. to add a false ceiling to the experimental setup for low-volume CFs,

4. to clarify the distance between the CF blades and the air velocity 

sensors,

5. to clarify the appropriate fan configuration during testing for lowvolume CFs,

6. to clarify the test method for CFs with heaters, and

7. to revise the allowable tolerance for air velocity sensors used during 

testing.
29

1. Low-Volume CF Testing at High and Low Speeds

• DOE proposes to require testing at high and low fan speeds for lowvolume CFs.

• The current DOE test procedure allows for testing at all available fan 

speeds, but does not specify how many speeds should be tested.

• Considerations:

• Testing at a single speed may limit representativeness.

• Testing at three speeds may introduce ambiguity regarding the definition 

of medium speed for fans with more than three settings; additionally, 

testing at three speeds incurs more test burden than testing at two 

speeds.

Issue 9: Low-Volume CF Testing at High and Low Speeds

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to test at high and low 

speed for low-volume CFs.
30

2. Elimination of Test Cylinder

• DOE proposes to eliminate the requirement to test with a test 

cylinder.

• Considerations:

• Testing without a cylinder installed more 

closely simulates installed usage conditions.

• DOE test results indicate that measuring airflow 

without a test cylinder may be more accurate.

• Eliminating the test cylinder requirement will: 

o decrease test burden for manufacturers 

wanting to introduce new fan sizes, 

o reduce potential market distortions favoring CFs 

sized according to currently-available cylinders, and

o more closely harmonize the low-volume and high-volume CF test 

procedures.

Diagram from ENERGY 

STAR’s guidance manual
31

3. Addition of False Ceiling

• DOE proposes to test all low-volume CFs with the addition of a false 

ceiling directly above the CF.

• Considerations:

• Testing with a false ceiling in place more closely simulates installed 

usage conditions.

• Testing both standard and hugger-type CFs with a false ceiling in place 

allows consumers the ability to make “apples-to-apples” comparisons 

between all low-volume CFs.

• Requiring a false ceiling will introduce a one-time (i.e., not recurring) 

financial burden on testing facilities.

Issue 11: Addition of False Ceiling

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a false ceiling to the 

experimental setup for all low-volume CF testing.
32

4. Distance Between CF Blades and Sensors

• DOE proposes to define the vertical position of a CF with respect to 

the distance between the lowest point on the CF blades and the 

heads of the air velocity sensors (applicable to all low-volume CFs).

• Considerations:

• The test set-up for the current DOE test 

procedure assumes that CF blades are reasonably 

flat; therefore, the procedure specifies a test setup 

distance based on the middle of the fan blade tips.

• It may be unclear as to how the “middle of blade tip” 

measurements should be made for fans having 

non-flat blades or unusual shapes.

Level of 

sensor 

heads

Diagram adapted from ENERGY

STAR’s guidance manual
33

5. Low-Volume CF Test Configuration

• DOE proposes to clarify that if there is more than one mounting 

option specified by the manufacturer that would meet the 

definition of a standard low-volume CF, that CF should be tested in 

the configuration that minimizes the distance between the ceiling 

and the lowest part of the fan blades. A similar clarification is 

proposed for hugger fans. 

• Considerations:

• DOE research indicates that a number of low-volume CFs can be 

mounted at more than one height while still being classified as either a 

standard or hugger CF.

• In contrast to the requirements for meeting DOE’s definition of a multimount fan, these fans only need to be tested in a single configuration (as 

described above).

• Testing all standard and hugger low-volume CFs in this manner will 

provide a consistent basis for comparison.
34

5. Low-Volume CF Test Configuration

Issue 12: Low-Volume CF Installation Configurations

DOE seeks comment and data on how CFs with more than one 

mounting option that would meet the definition of a standard CF 

are configured in the field. DOE also seeks comment and data on 

how hugger CFs with more than one mounting option are configured 

in the field.
35

6. CFs with Heaters

• DOE proposes to clarify that during testing, any heater packaged 

with a CF should be installed, in case it might affect airflow, but the 

heater should be switched off. 
36

7. Allowable Tolerance for Air Velocity Sensors

• DOE proposes to change the sensor tolerances from the current test 

procedure value of 1% to 5%.

• Considerations:

• The current DOE test procedure incorporates by reference ENERGY 

STAR guidance manual v1.1, which requires air speed sensors with an 

accuracy of ±1% or better.

• ENERGY STAR guidance manual v1.2, however, requires air speed 

sensors with an accuracy of only ±5% or better.

• From testing, DOE concluded that the variation in measured air speed 

was not significantly affected by decreasing the accuracy of the air 

velocity sensors from ±1% to ±5%.
37

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
38

Proposed Additional Test Methods

• DOE proposes to add the following test methods to the CF test 

procedure:

1. a test method for low-volume multi-mount CFs,

2. a test method for multi-headed CFs,

3. a test method for CFs for which the airflow is not directed vertically, 

4. a test method for high-volume CFs, and

5. a test method for power consumption in standby mode.
39

1. Test Method for Low-Volume Multi-Mount CFs

• DOE proposes to test low-volume, multi-mount CFs in two 

configurations:

1. In the standard configuration that minimizes the distance between the 

ceiling and the lowest part of the fan blades, and

2. In the hugger configuration that minimizes the distance between the 

ceiling and the lowest part of the fan blades.

• Considerations:

• Multi-mount CFs can be installed in both configurations. It is not known a 

priori in which configuration a multi-mount fan will be installed.

Issue 14: Low-Volume Multi-Mount CF Testing

DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers should be required 

to test multi-mount CFs in the standard configuration, hugger 

configuration, both configurations, or all configurations for which 

they are capable of being installed.
40

• DOE proposes to measure airflow of multi-headed CFs by testing a 

single fan head (i.e., no blades from other heads rotating), with the 

fan head in the same position as when a fan with a single head is 

tested, such that it is directly over sensor 1 (i.e., the center sensor).

• The single fan head’s measured airflow is then multiplied by the CF’s 

total number of fan heads to get total airflow for 

a multi-head fan.

• For belt-driven multi-head fans, DOE 

proposes to measure airflow by only 

installing a single fan head.

• For multi-head fans without individual fan 

head control (i.e., all heads must be on 

or off concurrently), DOE proposes to 

measure airflow of a single fan head by 

not installing the fan blades on the 

remaining fan heads.

2. Test Method for Multi-Headed CFs
41

2. Test Method for Multi-Headed CFs

• DOE proposes to measure power consumption of multi-headed CFs 

at a given speed with all CF heads turned on.

• Considerations:

• DOE testing of a single multi-head fan with identical fan heads showed 

that the power consumption for one individual fan head was 75% of 

the power consumption of both fan heads operating simultaneously.

• Measuring the power consumption of one fan head and multiplying by 

the number of fan heads could significantly overestimate the power 

consumption of both fan heads operating simultaneously.
42

• DOE proposes to clarify that the CF head should be adjusted such 

that the airflow is as vertical as possible prior to testing.

• If a CF cannot achieve vertical airflow, DOE proposes to orient the CF 

such that any remaining tilt is aligned along one of the four sensor 

axes. Air velocity should only be measured along that axis and the 

axis oriented 180 degrees with respect to that axis.

• Airflow should be calculated based on the 

continuous set of sensors with the largest 

air velocity measurements.

3. Test Method for CFs with Non-Vertical Airflow

Example Air Velocity Pattern for 

Airflow Not Directly Downward
43

4. Test Method for High-Volume CFs

• DOE proposes to calculate high-volume CF efficiency based on airflow 

and power consumption at high speed.

• For CFs up to 24 feet in diameter, DOE proposes testing high-volume 

CFs using a test procedure based on AMCA 230-12 (i.e., keeping with 

industry practice for high-volume CFs with blade spans less than 6 feet).

• Considerations:

• High-volume CFs are often not equipped

with discrete speeds.

• AMCA 230 requires only a load cell to 

measure air velocity, which appears to be 

more practical for large-diameter fans than 

using an array of sensors as required in the 

current DOE test procedure for low-volume CFs.

• High-volume CFs are typically offered in a range of diameters from 36 

inches to 24 feet, meaning some fans are too large to be accommodated 

by current low-volume CF testing facilities.
44

4. Test Method for High-Volume CFs

• DOE proposes to modify the specified room dimensions for highvolume CFs in the following ways:

≥ 44” for all CFs

= 20’ for CFs with blade span > 6’

≥ 10’ for CFs with blade span > 6’

Issue 10: High-Volume CF Testing

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to test high-volume fans at high speed only.

Issue 13: Test Room Dimensions and Testing Facilities

DOE seeks comment on the proposed modifications to the testing room dimensions for high-volume 

CFs. DOE specifically requests information on how manufacturers currently test large-diameter, highvolume CFs, as well as the availability of suitable third-party testing facilities that can conduct the 

proposed test procedure and the ability to develop such facilities.
45

5. Test Method for Power Consumption in Standby Mode

• DOE proposes to test standby power consumption in CFs with 

standby functionality for both low-volume and high-volume fans.

• Low-volume CFs typically only have standby functionality if sold with a 

remote control.

• High-volume CFs may also have standby from variable frequency drives.

• DOE proposes to incorporate International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301 by

reference as a basis for standby mode testing, but 

reduce the interval of time over which testing occurs 

to 100 seconds, as well as the period of time prior to 

standby testing.

• DOE does not propose to conduct testing of offmode power consumption.
46

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
47

Effective Date and Compliance Date

• The proposals for amending Appendix U would not affect a 

manufacturer’s ability to comply with current energy conservation 

standards because DOE does not currently have performance-based 

standards for CFs as measured by airflow efficiency.

• DOE expects that any final rule will be in effect 30 days after 

publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal Register.

• Revised Appendix U must be used to determine any 

representations of efficiency 180 days after the publication of any 

final amended test procedures in the Federal Register.
48

Sampling Plan

• DOE proposes that the minimum sample size for testing CFs shall be 

two, as required in 10 CFR Part 429.11.

• DOE proposes any represented value of the efficiency or airflow shall 

be less than or equal to the lower of:

Sample mean, x =

1

n

 xi

n

i=1

Lower confidence limit (LCL)

0.9

=

x − t0.90

s

n

0.9

• n – number of samples

• xi – the ith sample

• t0.90 – t statistic for a 90% 

one-tailed confidence 

interval with n-1 degrees 

of freedom

• S – sample standard 

deviation
49

Sampling Plan

• DOE proposes any represented value of the wattage shall be greater 

than or equal to the higher of:

Sample mean, x =

1

n

 xi

n

i=1

Upper confidence limit (UCL)

1.1

=

x − t0.95

s

n

1.1

• n – number of samples

• xi – the ith sample

• t0.95 – t statistic for a 95% 

one-tailed confidence 

interval with n-1 degrees 

of freedom

• S – sample standard 

deviation
50

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
51

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

• DOE has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 

this rulemaking, which describes potential impacts on small 

businesses associated with CF testing requirements.

• DOE used the Small Business Administration’s small business size 

standards for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes 335210 and 333412 to determine whether any small CF 

manufacturers would be subject to the requirements of the rule:

• DOE estimates that there are between 25 and 35 small business 

manufacturers of low-volume CFs.

• DOE estimates that there are between 15 and 25 small business 

manufacturers of high-volume CFs.
52

• Projected compliance requirements of proposed rule for low-volume 

CFs, relative to current ENERGY STAR test procedure:

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Current ENERGY STAR TP Proposed DOE TP Difference

Testing at 3 fan speeds Testing at 2 fan speeds + 35 min test time

Does not require false ceiling Requires false ceiling - $1,000 (max, one-time cost)

Requires test cylinder Does not require test cylinder + $2,000-$3,000/new cylinder

+ 15 min test time

Requires 30 min warm-up time 

before testing at low speed

Requires 15 min warm-up time 

before testing at low speed + 15 min

Does not require standby 

mode testing Requires standby mode testing - 5 min (max) test time

Estimated Cost of 

Proposed TP for LowVolume CFs

Standard and Hugger $1,200-$3,600/basic model

Multi-Mount $2,400-$7,200/basic model

Multi-Head $2,600-$4,000/basic model
53

• Expected test costs under proposed rule for high-volume CFs:

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Description Estimated Cost

Load-cell, fabricated load-cell 

frame, power meter, and one 

air velocity sensor

$4,500 (one-time cost)

Cost to conduct proposed test 

procedure $2,000-$7,000/basic model
54

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Low-Volume CFs High-Volume CFs

Number of small

business manufacturers 25 - 35 15 - 25

Number of basic models 

per manufacturer 1 - 80 1 - 30

Median revenue ≈ $15,000,000 ≈ $8,000,000

Testing Cost as Fraction 

of Median Revenue 0.01% - 1% 0.05% - 1.5%

Issue 15: Number of Small Business Manufacturers of CFs

DOE invites interested parties to comment on the estimated number 

of small business manufacturers of CFs.
55

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Issue 17: Impact on Small Business Manufacturers of CFs

DOE requests comments on its analysis of burden to small 

businesses for testing CFs according to the proposed test procedure.

Issue 18: Alternative Test Methods to Minimize Economic Impacts

DOE seeks comment and information on any alternative test 

methods that, consistent with the statutory requirements, would 

reduce the economic impact of the rule on small entities.

Issue 19: Inter-Lab Calibration for Testing Facilities

DOE seeks comment on how calibration between testing facilities 

could be facilitated.
56

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric

4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure

8 Closing Remarks

1 Covered Products

5 Proposed Additional Test Methods

6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan

2 Existing Test Procedure

7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
57

Ceiling Fans Energy Conservation Standards – Preliminary 

Analysis
58

How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the CF rulemaking by:

– Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans;

– Docket Number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AC87.

• Email: CeilingFan2012STD0045@ee.doe.gov

Postal: Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE-2J

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0121

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Suite 600

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20024

Tel: 202 586-2945

Energy Conservation Standards TSD Comment Period closes: 

November 28, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT
59

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening 

remarks or statements at this time.
60

CFs ECS Rulemaking Schedule

Milestone Date

Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of CFs and CFLKs 

Framework Document March 11, 2013

Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of CFs Preliminary 

Technical Support Document September 29, 2014

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for CFs (projected) Q3* 2015

Final Rule for CFs (projected) Q2* 2016

Compliance Date for CFs (projected) Q2* 2019

* Calendar quarters

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
61

Regulatory History: Energy Conservation Standards

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) by adding CFs as covered products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(ff))

− Provided DOE the ability to establish energy conservation standards for 

“ceiling fans,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. 6291(49), and set forth requirements 

for determining whether standards should be amended.

• On October 18, 2005, DOE published a final rule technical amendment 

(70 FR 60407, 60413) codifying statutorily-prescribed design standards 

for CFs, including:

− Fan speed controls separate from any light controls;

− Adjustable speed controls; and

− Capability for reverse action (except for fans for industrial or outdoor 

applications, or cases where safety standards would be violated).

• DOE is conducting this energy conservation standards rulemaking 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(6).
62

Preliminary Analysis Stage

Framework

Document 

Prelim 

Analysis NOPR 

Final

Rule

Market & 

Technology

Screening

Analysis

Engineering

Analysis

Energy Use & End 

Use Load

Characterization

Shipments

Analysis

National

Impact

Analysis

Life-Cycle

Cost and

Payback 

Period Analysis

Markups 

Analysis / 

Product Price 

Determination

Prelim

MIA
63

EPCA Factors

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) directs DOE to consider seven factors 

when setting energy conservation standards.

EPCA Factors DOE Analysis

1. Economic impact on consumers and 

manufacturers

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared 

to increased cost for the product Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

3. Total projected energy savings National Impact Analysis 

4. Impact on utility or performance Engineering Analysis

Screening Analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of competition Manufacturer Impact Analysis

6. Need for national energy conservation National Impact Analysis

7. Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant

Emissions Analysis

Utility Impact Analysis

Employment Impact Analysis
64

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
65

Scope of Coverage

• EPCA defines a “ceiling fan” as “a nonportable device that is 

suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan 

blades.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(49))

• In the TP NOPR, DOE is proposing to:

• reinterpret the definition of “ceiling fan” to 

incorporate hugger CFs,

• clarify that multi-mount fans are included, and

• clarify that high-volume fans are included (where volume refers to 

airflow volume).

• DOE is required to consider establishing separate exempted product 

classes for highly decorative fans for which air movement 

performance is a secondary feature. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(6)(B)(ii)) 

• Statutorily-prescribed design standards will remain in place.
66

Scope of Coverage: CF Definitions

• Regulatory Definitions Under Consideration in this Pre-Analysis: 

• Highly decorative CF: “A ceiling fan that operates at a maximum rotational 

speed of 90 RPM and produces less than 2000 CFM of airflow on high 

speed.”

• Regulatory Definitions Proposed in the Concurrent CF Test Procedure 

NOPR and discussed this morning:

• Low-volume CF

• High-volume CF

• Hugger CF

• Standard CF

• Multi-Mount CF

Issue 1: Definition of Highly Decorative CFs

DOE invites comments on the proposed definition for highly decorative CFs. 
67

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
68

Market & Technology Assessment

• Purpose:

• Characterize the CF market 

• Define product classes

• Identify technology options

• Method:

• Identify and characterize manufacturers of CFs 

• Identify existing regulatory and voluntary efficiency programs

• Gather historical shipment and other relevant market data

• Estimate market trends

• Identify measures that could improve efficiency
69

Market Assessment

CF Categories Market Description 

May Include...

Percent of Market in 

DOE Analysis

High-Volume Industrial, commercial ~10%

Low-Volume Residential, commercial ~90%

Standard Standard, indoor, 

extended 26%

Hugger Hugger, low-profile, 

flush mount 21%

MultiMount

Multi-position, 

downrod or flush 

mount

53%

Highly 

Decorative Decorative <1%
70

Market Assessment

Low-Volume CFs High-Volume CFs

Major 

Manufacturers 

and Market

• ≈ 80% of CFs sold through three 

mass market retailers

• Most CFs manufactured overseas

• Most large-diameter fans manufactured 

in U.S.; DOE assumes most smalldiameter fans manufactured overseas

• Limited market data available

Historical 

Shipments, 

2011

≈ 18.8 million (NPD, 2011) Limited data available

Saturation, 

2009

In 73% of US households, 3.1 fans per 

household (RECS, 2009) Limited data available

Lifetime 7-18 years (Appliance Magazine data)

• DOE estimated mean of 13.8 years 

Limited data available; assumed to be same 

as for low-volume CFs
71

Market Assessment

Issue 2: Manufacturing Locations of High-Volume CFs

DOE requests comment and input on the manufacturing location for highvolume CFs, particularly high-volume small-diameter CFs. 

Issue 3: High-Volume CF Data

DOE seeks comment and data on distribution of sizes and motor power for 

both high-volume large-diameter CFs and high-volume small-diameter CFs. In 

particular, for high-volume large-diameter CFs, DOE assumes a 1 horsepower 

CF is representative of that entire market and requests comment on the 

accuracy of this assumption. DOE also seeks comment and data on the 

distribution of end users by industry and application and the geographic 

distribution of high-volume CFs. 
72

Market Assessment

Issue 8: Residential CF Penetration

DOE estimated a current household saturation rate for CFs of 73%. DOE 

assumed that the residential market for low-volume CFs would continue to 

penetrate until a saturation of 75% is reached. Additionally, DOE estimated an 

average of 3.1 CFs installed in a new installation. DOE welcomes comment on 

these assumptions.
73

Product Classes

• Currently: only one product class.

• In DOE’s previous rulemaking addressing CFs (71 FR 71340 (Dec. 8, 2006)), 

DOE did not establish standards for CFs beyond the design standards in 

section 325(ff) of EPCA, which apply to all CFs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)).

• Pursuant to EPCA, DOE establishes different product classes by: (1) 

type of energy used; (2) capacity of the product; or (3) any other 

performance-related features that require different standard levels, 

such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

• DOE is considering establishing five (5) separate CF product classes for 

this rulemaking, based on capacity and performance-related features 

that affect consumer utility.
74

Product Classes

Product Class Definition

Low-volume

Hugger Lowest point on fan blades is ≤ 10 inches 

from the ceiling 

Standard Lowest point on fan blades > 10 inches 

from the ceiling 

Highly 

decorative

Rotational speed ≤ 90 RPM and airflow 

≤ 2,000 CFM at high speed

High-volume

Small-diameter

(HVSD) High-volume CF with diameter ≤ 7 feet

Large-diameter

(HVLD) High-volume CF with diameter > 7 feet
75

• Multi-mount CFs are defined as CFs that can be installed in both the 

standard and hugger configurations.

• In the concurrent TP NOPR for CFs, DOE is proposing to test low-volume 

multi-mount CFs in both the standard and hugger configurations.

• DOE is considering requiring multi-mount CFs meet the potential energy 

conservation standards for both standard and hugger product classes.

Multi-Mount CFs

Issue 14: Product Classes

DOE seeks comment on the product classes under consideration for CFs. DOE 

also seeks comment on its approach to highly decorative CFs. 
76

Technology Options

More Efficient Motors:

• Direct-drive single-phase 

induction motors

• Geared single-phase induction 

motors

• Brushless direct current (DC) 

motors

• Three-phase induction motors

CF Controls:

• Occupancy sensors

• DOE investigated the following technology options to improve CF 

efficiency:

More Efficient Blades:

• Fewer fan blades

• Twisted blades

• Curved/airfoil blades

• Blade attachments

• Beveled blades

• Blade material
77

Technology Options

Issue 12: CFs with Wind and Temperature Sensors

DOE request information on the availability of CFs including wind and 

temperature sensors and any data on the potential energy savings associated 

with such products. 

Issue 13: CFs Technology Options

DOE requests comment on these technology options being considered for CFs 

and any additional options that should be included. 
78

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
79

• Screen out design options that DOE will not consider in the 

engineering analysis for ceiling fans based on:

1. Technological feasibility: incorporation in commercially available products or in working 

prototypes

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service: mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant 

market at the time the standard requires compliance

3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability: significant adverse impact on 

the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or causing the 

unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics, features, 

sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally 

available in the United States at the time

4. Adverse impacts on health or safety: significant adverse impacts on health or safety

Screening Analysis

Purpose
80

Design Options: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE identified the design options below that can improve

low-volume ceiling fan efficiency. 

More Efficient Motors 

More Efficient Direct-Drive Single-Phase Induction Motors Screened in 

Brushless DC Motors Screened in

Geared Induction Motors Screened out

Three-Phase Induction Motors Screened out

More Efficient Blades 

Fans with Fewer Blades Screened out

Airfoil Blades Screened out

Beveled Blades Screened out

Twisted Blades Screened out

Blade Attachments Screened out

Alternative Blade Materials Screened out

Ceiling Fan Controls 

Occupancy Sensors Screened out
81

Design Options: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE identified the design options below that can improve 

high-volume small-diameter (HVSD) ceiling fan efficiency. 

More Efficient Motors 

Brushless DC Motors Screened in

More Efficient Direct-Drive Single-Phase Induction Motors Screened out

Geared Induction Motors Screened out

Three-Phase Induction Motors Screened out

More Efficient Blades 

Airfoil Blades Screened in

Curved Blades Screened in

Fans with Fewer Blades Screened out

Twisted Blades Screened out

Blade Attachments Screened out

Alternative Blade Materials Screened out

Ceiling Fan Controls 

Occupancy Sensors Screened out
82

Design Options: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE identified the design options below that can improve 

high-volume large-diameter (HVLD) ceiling fan efficiency. 

More Efficient Motors 

Geared Motors Screened in

Three-Phase Induction Motors Screened in

Brushless DC Motors Screened in

More Efficient Direct-Drive Single-Phase Induction Motors Screened out

More Efficient Blades 

Airfoil Blades Screened in

Fans with Fewer Blades Screened in

Curved Blades Screened in

Twisted Blades Screened out

Blade Attachments Screened out

Alternative Blade Materials Screened out

Ceiling Fan Controls 

Occupancy Sensors Screened out
83

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
84

 Choose product classes and representative fan sizes to be analyzed.

 Select baseline efficiency level based on common features and bottomof-market efficiency.

 For each representative product class and size, identify the efficiency 

and cost of more efficient units based on design option modeling, 

product testing, and teardowns. 

 Develop efficiency levels that range from the baseline to max-tech. 

 The result of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency curves 

(MSP vs. efficiency) for each product class and representative size 

analyzed. 

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Engineering Analysis

• Scope of Coverage Methodology
85

• DOE analyzed the following representative sizes of low-volume fans in 

two product classes:

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

Product Class Representative Size

Standard Fans

• 44-inch

• 52-inch

• 60-inch

Hugger Fans

• 44-inch

• 52-inch

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
86

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE selected baseline models typical of the most common, leastefficient ceiling fans offered in the market, i.e., ‘market-minimum’ fans.

– DOE research showed that the most common models on the market were 

flat-blade fans with single-phase induction motors.

– However, the least efficient models on the market had “unconventional,” 

non-flat blades.

• The performances of both the flat-blade and unconventional-blade fans 

were analyzed separately. 

• The final cost-efficiency curve is an aggregate that represents a marketweighted average of both blade types.

– The baseline efficiency of this curve is the efficiency of the least efficient fan 

on the market for each product class and representative size. Hence, the 

baseline efficiency is the efficiency of the market-minimum unconventionalblade fans.

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
87

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes

• The following tables provide both the market-minimum flat-blade and 

unconventional-blade fan efficiencies.

– The efficiency numbers circled below correspond to the baseline 

efficiencies for the final cost-efficiency curve.

Market Minimum Flat-Blade Fans

Product Class/ 

Representative Size

Efficiency 

(CFM/W)

Standard/44-inch 66

Standard/52-inch 64

Standard/60-inch 68

Hugger/44-inch 49*

Hugger/52-inch 50*

Market Minimum 

Unconventional-Blade Fans

Product Class/ 

Representative Size

Efficiency 

(CFM/W)

Standard/44-inch 50

Standard/52-inch 49

Standard/60-inch 51

Hugger/44-inch 37*

Hugger/52-inch 38*

*The hugger ceiling fan efficiencies account for an artificial ceiling.
88

• DOE selected a range of ceiling fans for testing. 

• These higher efficiency units were torn down and costed.

– DOE calculated the cost of the individual components in each fan, i.e.

blades, motor, motor housing, packaging, controls, final assembly, etc. 

From this, DOE estimated the factory cost of the torn-down fans. 

– DOE then developed a model to estimate the factory cost of fans that were 

not torn down. 

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
89

• DOE used data from multiple sources to calculate how incorporating 

each design option would increase the efficiency and cost of a baseline 

ceiling fan. 

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes

• The design options, in terms of increasing efficiency deltas, were 

determined to be: 

1. Fan optimization

2. A larger direct drive motor

3. A DC motor. 

Sources:

• Test Data

• Manufacturer Specifications

• Retail Prices

• Manufacturer Interviews

• Teardowns

Cost 

Efficiency C M 

Design Option

Baseline

Efficiency 

delta

delta

Cost 

Delta
90

• DOE created two separate cost-efficiency curves by applying the 

efficiency and cost deltas for each design option to the efficiency and 

cost values of the market-minimum flat-blade and unconventionalblade fans.

• The relative market shares of the unconventional-blade and flat-blade 

fans were used to aggregate the two cost-efficiency curves into a single 

curve for each product class and representative size.

• The following efficiency levels were identified for the aggregate curve:

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

Efficiency Level (EL) Description

EL 0 Baseline

EL 1 Aggregated Market Minimum

EL 2 EL 1 + Fan Optimization

EL 3 EL 2 + Larger Direct Drive Motors

EL 4 EL 2 + DC Motor

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship 

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
91

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes

Unconventionalblade fans

Flat-blade fans

Aggregate

Cost Efficiency Curve

Factory Cost ($)

Efficiency (CFM/W)

98%

2%

Weightings: Relative 

weightings are based on the 

market share of each blade 

type.

Baseline Efficiency: 

Efficiency of the least 

efficient fan on the market

Max-Tech Efficiency: 

Efficiency was set to the 

maximum efficiency of the 

unconventional-blade fans.
92

Engineering Analysis: Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

• Since DOE research indicated that the low-volume ceiling fans are being 

manufactured by third-party factories outside of the U.S., a markup of 

1.2 was used to calculate the manufacturer production cost (MPC). A 

manufacturer markup of 1.37 was applied to the MPC to calculate the 

manufacturer selling price (MSP). 

• The result is a set of cost-efficiency relationships for each design option, 

in the form of MSP as a function of CFM/W, for each product class and 

representative size.

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes

Factory Cost

• Direct material

• Direct labor

• Factory overhead

• Depreciation

Manufacturer 

Selling Price

(MSP)

Manufacturer 

Production 

Cost (MPC)

Factory Markup 

= 1.2

Manufacturer Markup 

= 1.37
93

Results of the Engineering Analysis – Low-Volume

• The final cost-efficiency 

curves for each product 

class and representative 

size were used to create a 

continuous relationship 

between ceiling fan 

diameter (in) and 

efficiency (CFM/W).

Standard Low-Volume Fans (without artificial ceiling)
94

• DOE analyzed the following representative sizes of high-volume fans in 

two product classes:

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Engineering Analysis: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

High-Volume Ceiling Fans

Product Class Representative Size

HVLD

• 8-foot

• 12-foot

• 20-foot

HVSD • 36-inch

• 56-inch

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
95

Engineering Analysis: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

• The baseline model represents the most common, least efficient model 

on the market for each representative product class.

• Research showed that:

– the most common HVLD models in the market were curved, extruded 

aluminum bladed fans with geared three-phase induction motors

– the most common HVSD models in the market were flat, steel bladed fans 

with conventional AC (PSC) motors

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
96

Engineering Analysis: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

• The least efficient HVLD and HVSD fans on the market in the 

representative sizes were identified using publicly available 

performance data.

• DOE plotted CFM/W versus fan diameter and applied a linear trend line 

to obtain an equation which provided the baseline CFM/W at each 

representative size in the HVSD and HVLD classes.

High-Volume Baseline Fans

Product Class/ 

Representative Size Efficiency (CFM/W)

HVLD/8-foot 44.4

HVLD/12-foot 86.7

HVLD/20-foot 171.4

HVSD/36-inch 80.3

Determine Cost- HVSD/56-inch 231.0

Efficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
97

• Higher efficiency levels were identified using the efficiency data from 

retailer and manufacturer websites, manufacturer interviews, and the 

low-volume fan analysis for the cost and efficiency relationship.

• The costs at each efficiency level were determined by back-calculating 

the fan’s MPC from advertised purchase prices. 

─ For HVSD fans, DOE used the process shown below to calculate the MPC.

Engineering Analysis: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes

Purchase Price 

(PP)

U.S. Manufacturer 

Selling Price 

(MSP)

U.S. Manufacturer 

Production Cost 

(MPC)

─ For HVLD fans, because DOE assumed HVLD fan manufacturers have their 

own production facilities, only the dealer and manufacturer markups 

were applied to the fan’s purchase price to calculate the MPC.

Manufacturer Markup 

= 1.37

Dealer Markup = 1.74,

Tariff, Shipping, Overhead

• Direct material

• Direct labor

• Factory overhead

• Depreciation
98

• Similar to the low-volume engineering analysis, DOE created cost and 

efficiency deltas for each screened-in design option for the highvolume engineering analysis.

• The design options, from least efficient to most efficient are:

– HVLD fan: 

1. Eight to six blades

2. Airfoil blades

3. DC motor

– HVSD fan: 

1. Curved blades

2. Airfoil blades

3. DC motor

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
99

Engineering Analysis: High-Volume Ceiling Fans

• The following efficiency levels were identified for the cost-efficiency 

relationship. 

– For HVLD ceiling fans:

– For HVSD ceiling fans:

Select Baseline 

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher 

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis

Efficiency Level (EL) Description

EL 0 Baseline

EL 1 EL 0 + Curved Blades

EL 2 EL 0 + Airfoil Blades

EL 3 EL 2 + DC Motor

Efficiency Level (EL) Description

EL 0 Baseline

EL 1 EL 0 + Six Blades

EL 2 EL 1 + Airfoil Blades

EL 3 EL 2 + DC Motor

Determine CostEfficiency 

Relationship

Choose Product 

Classes and 

Representative

Sizes
100

Results of the Engineering Analysis – High Volume

High-Volume Large Diameter Fans

• The final cost-efficiency curves for each product class and representative size were 

used to create a continuous relationship between ceiling fan diameter (in) and 

efficiency (CFM/W).
101

Results of the Engineering Analysis – High Volume

High-Volume Small Diameter Fans

• For HVSD fans, a piecewise approach was used to best demonstrate the relationship 

between ceiling fan diameter (in) and efficiency (CFM/W).
102

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
103

• Purpose

– Determine purchase prices for all efficiency levels based on 

manufacturer selling price (MSP)

– Characterize product distribution channels and market segments

• Definition

– Baseline markups relate the MSP of product with baseline efficiency to 

the consumer purchase price

– Incremental markups relate the incremental change in MSP of product 

with higher efficiency to the incremental change in consumer purchase 

price 

• Incremental markups cover only expenses that vary with MSP - in this case, 

expenses that increase with equipment efficiency 

Markups Analysis
104

Markups Analysis

• Distribution Channels for Low-Volume CFs

• Distribution Channels for High-Volume CFs

Manufacturer Electric 

Wholesaler Contractor Consumer

Home 

Improvement 

Center

Showroom

Manufacturer Dealer Consumer

In-House 

Dealer
105

Markups Analysis

• Home Improvement Center and Showroom Markups:

– 10-K reports were used to estimate markups for three major retailers.

– DOE also used the 2007 U.S. Census Annual Retail Trade Survey for “Overall 

Building Material and Supplies Dealers.”

• Showroom markups estimates were based on input from manufacturer 

interviews.

• Wholesaler and Contractor Markups:

– The 2007 U.S. Census Annual Wholesaler Trade Report for “Electrical and 

electronic appliance, television and radio set merchant wholesaler” was 

used to develop wholesaler markups.

– DOE used 2013 RSMeans Electrical Cost Data to develop contractor markups.

• Dealer markups are based on 10-K reports. 

• Tariff and Shipping Costs:

– Applicable for low-volume CFs and high-volume small diameter CFs. 
106

Markups Analysis

• Markups for Low-Volume CFs

• Markups for High-Volume CFs

Distribution 

Channel

Manufacturer  Home 

Center  Consumer

Manufacturer  Wholesaler 

 Contractor  Consumer

Manufacturer  Showroom 

 Consumer

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

Manufacturer 1.37 1.37 1.37

Home Center 1.50 1.14 -- -- -- --

Wholesaler -- -- 1.25 1.10 -- --

Contractor -- -- 1.10 1.10 -- --

Showroom -- -- -- -- 2.00 1.52

Sales Tax 1.071 1.071 1.071

Distribution 

Channel

Manufacturer  Dealer  Customer Manufacturer  In-house Dealer  Customer

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

Manufacturer 1.37 1.37

Dealer/ Inhouse Dealer 1.74 1.21 1.74 1.21

Sales Tax 1.071 1.071 1.071 1.071
107

Issue 27: Distribution Channels and Markups for High-Volume CFs

DOE requests data and information on distribution channels and price 

markups for high-volume CFs.

Issue 28: Shipping and Tariff Costs

DOE requests data and information on who pays the shipping and tariff costs 

for imported fans in each distribution channel, especially for high-volume 

small-diameter CFs and for the low-volume CFs sold through a wholesaler.

Markups Analysis
108

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
109

Energy Use Characterization

• Purpose:

• Develop distributions of annual energy consumption representative of 

purchasers in U.S. 

• Annual energy use is the site energy use associated with operating the 

product.

• These distributions are used in the LCC and PBP analysis to calculate annual 

operating costs.

• Method:

• Develop purchaser samples for low-volume and high-volume fans.

• Develop distribution of operating hours at each speed.

• Determine active mode energy use by multiplying operating hours by 

power consumed at each speed.

• Determine standby energy consumption by multiplying standby hours by 

standby power.

• Total annual energy use is sum of active- and standby-mode energy use. 
110

Energy Use Characterization

• Monte Carlo sample of 10,000 purchasers.

• Low-volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in residential applications only.

• Randomly selected households from CF owners in the Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA) 2009 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (RECS).

• High-volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in commercial and industrial applications only.

• Commercial-industrial split estimated based on the floor space ratio for 

likely CF installation locations

Purchaser Samples
111

Energy Use Characterization

• Low-volume CFs:

• Used information from a survey of CF owners performed by Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL study).

• Average of 6.45 hours per day.

• Average of 41% of time at high speed, 37% at medium, and 22% at low.

• Sampled from census-division-specific hours of use distributions for 

each CF in the Monte Carlo sample.

• High-volume CFs:

• Used feedback from manufacturer interviews.

• Average of 12 hours per day.

• Average 10% of time at high speed, 80% at medium, and 10% at low. 

• No difference in operating hours by geographic location or season.

Operating Hours
112

Energy Use Characterization

• Low-volume CFs:

• Provided by engineering analysis.

• Regarding energy use of multi-mount CFs: when analyzing a given EL 

for the hugger product class, DOE assumed an equivalent EL for the 

standard product class (and vice-versa).

• High-volume CFs:

• Power at high speed provided by engineering analysis.

• Used ratios between speeds from low-volume engineering analysis to 

determine power at low and medium speed.

• Medium: 53% of high-speed power.

• Low: 23% of high-speed power.

Power During Operation
113

Energy Use Characterization

• Low-volume CFs:

• Standby for all DC fans (i.e., 2% of CFs at EL4).

• Standby for all AC fans with remote control.

• Estimated 7.4% of fans have remote control, based on LBNL study.

• Power during standby = 1.4 watts, based on manufacturer feedback.

• High-volume CFs:

• Standby for all DC small-diameter fans.

• Standby for all large-diameter CFs, because of variable frequency drive.

• Power during standby = 1.4 watts. Assumed to be the same as lowvolume CFs.

• CFs with standby functionality were assumed to be in standby mode 

during all hours not in active mode.

Standby
114

Energy Use Characterization

• DOE issued a Request for Information on this topic in October 2013.

• DOE considered the following sources to inform its position:

• 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey

• Florida Solar Energy Center: Are Energy Savings Due to Ceiling Fans Just Hot Air?

• San Diego Gas & Electric: Statewide Investor Owned Utility Ceiling Fan Study

• Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light Kit Use in the U.S.—Results of a Survey on Amazon 

Mechanical Turk

• ASHRAE Standard 55-2010

• AcuPOLL® Precision Research, Inc.: Survey of Consumer Ceiling Fan Usage and 

Operations

• Due to the negligible impact on shipments, DOE believes that 

interactions between ceiling fan use and air conditioning use on a 

national level would be negligible.

• Consequently, DOE has assumed no impact on air conditioning 

usage in the energy use analysis.

Interaction Between CFs and Air Conditioning
115

Energy Use Characterization

Example Results for 52” Low-Volume Standard Fans

EL Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

0 145 0

1 106 39

2 93 52

3 82 63

4 57 88
116

Energy Use Characterization

Average Low-Volume Standard Results

EL

44-inch diameter 52-inch diameter 60-inch diameter

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

0 96 0 145 0 189 0

1 70 25 106 39 139 51

2 64 31 93 52 116 73

3 59 37 82 63 101 88

4 41 55 57 88 70 120

Average Low-Volume Hugger Results

EL

44-inch diameter 52-inch diameter

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

0 108 0 131 0

1 79 29 96 35

2 76 32 87 44

3 69 38 77 54

4 48 59 54 78
117

Energy Use Characterization

Average High-Volume Small-Diameter Results

Average High-Volume Large-Diameter Results

EL

36-inch diameter 56-inch diameter

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

0 182 0 232 0

1 170 12 217 15

2 130 52 165 66

3 75 106 95 137

EL

8-foot diameter 12-foot diameter 20-foot diameter

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

0 1532 0 2115 0 2698 0

1 1473 59 2034 81 2595 104

2 923 609 1274 842 1624 1074

3 456 1076 627 1488 799 1899
118

Issue 29: Operating Hours for High-Volume CFs

DOE requests data and information on operating hours for high-volume CFs. 

Issue 35: CFs Impact on Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment

DOE requests data and information on the impact that CF operation has on 

the operation of air conditioners and heating equipment.

Energy Use Characterization
119

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
120

Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP)

• Purpose

• Provide an economic evaluation from the end-user’s perspective.

• Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) is the total purchaser cost over the life of a product. 

• Payback Period (PBP) is the time required to recover the increased purchase 

price of more energy-efficient products through reduced operating costs.

• Method

• Use purchaser samples developed in the energy use analysis.

• Determine total installed costs for each EL.

• Determine operating costs for first year and lifetime of product.

• Calculate PBP by dividing average increase in installed cost by average 

decrease in first-year operating cost.

• Calculate LCC by adding installed cost and lifetime operating costs.

• LCC savings are calculated with respect to the efficiency of a product a 

purchaser would purchase in the absence of a new standard. 

Overview
121

LCC and PBP

• Monte Carlo sample of 10,000 purchasers.

• Low-volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in residential applications only.

• Randomly selected households from CF owners in RECS.

• High-volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in commercial and industrial applications only.

• Used same geographic distribution as CF owners in RECS.

• Estimated proportions of commercial and industrial purchasers:

• Small-diameter: 80% commercial, 20% industrial.

• Large-diameter: 20% commercial, 80% industrial.

Purchaser Samples
122

LCC and PBP

• Distribution of fan diameters used in the LCC calculation, estimated 

based on distribution of models on the market and manufacturer 

feedback.

Estimated Market Share by Fan Diameter

Diameter Probability (%)

Low-volume standard

44-inch 21.1

52-inch 72.5

60-inch 6.5

Low-volume hugger

44-inch 46.2

52-inch 53.8

Diameter Probability (%)

High-volume small-diameter

36-inch 33.3

56-inch 66.7

High-volume large-diameter

8-foot 16.4

12-foot 16.4

20-foot 67.2

Low-Volume High-Volume
123

LCC and PBP

• ELs that purchasers would purchase in absence of a standard.

• Estimated base-case distribution of ELs using distribution of models 

on the market.

Base-Case Distribution of ELs 

EL

Low-Volume High-Volume

Standard Hugger Small-diameter Large-diameter

0 3.3 3.2 25.2 8.7

1 4.9 4.7 24.3 34.8

2 29.6 28.4 37.6 56.5

3 58.4 59.4 12.9 0

4 3.8 4.3 -- --

Percentage of each EL in the Base Case in 2019
124

LCC and PBP

• Purchase price provided by markups analysis.

• Price learning incorporated to account for decreases in manufacturing 

costs due to production experience by compliance date (more detail 

provided in the shipments section).

• Remote control cost added to 7.4% of low-volume AC CFs. 

• Remote control already included in price of DC fans from engineering 

analysis.

• Sales tax determined by geographic location of purchaser.

• Installation cost not included because it does not appear to vary 

with EL.

Total Installed Cost
125

LCC and PBP

• Annual energy consumption provided by energy use analysis.

• Electricity price estimated using data from EIA:

• Estimated price based on geographic location and economic sector.

Annual Energy Cost
126

LCC and PBP

• Maintenance cost not included because no evidence that it varies 

with EL.

• Included repair cost for DC fans.

• Included repair cost for 6.5% of DC fans.

• Represents the cost to purchaser of higher DC failure rate.

• Assumed failure would occur in middle of fan’s lifetime.

• Estimated purchaser repair costs from manufacturer feedback.

Repair and Maintenance Costs

Product class Repair cost

Low-volume standard $150

Low-volume hugger $150

High-volume small-diameter $150

High-volume large-diameter $1000
127

LCC and PBP

• Estimated lifetime using shipments data for low-volume fans and 

age distribution from the LBNL study. 

• Assumed the same lifetime distribution for high-volume fans.

Lifetime

• Lifetime distribution:

• Minimum: 5 years.

• Median: 13 years.

• Mean: 13.8 years.

• Maximum: 31 years.
128

LCC and PBP

• Used to discount operating costs to year of purchase (i.e. 2019).

• Represents the opportunity cost of funds used to purchase CFs. 

• Low-volume fans for replacement

• Assumed all fans sold through home center and showroom channels are 

replacement products.

• Used a distribution of debt and asset classes for purchasing appliances.

• e.g., stocks, mutual funds, savings accounts, bonds, loans

• Low-volume fans for installation in new homes

• Assumed all fans sold through wholesaler-contractor channel are installed 

in new homes.

• Used a distribution of mortgage rates.

• High-volume

• Used a distribution of weighted average cost of capital.

Discount Rates
129

LCC and PBP

Low-Volume Standard Results

Low-Volume Hugger Results

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple 

Payback 

Period

(years)

Average 

Lifetime 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

 irst Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

0 107 17 182 289 --- 13.8

1 107 13 133 240 0 13.8

2 107 11 117 224 0 13.8

3 120 10 104 224 1.8 13.8

4 149 7 72 221 4.1 13.8

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple 

Payback 

Period

(years)

Average 

Lifetime 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

 irst Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

0 94 15 159 253 --- 13.8

1 94 11 117 211 0 13.8

2 94 10 109 203 0 13.8

3 105 9 98 202 1.9 13.8

4 129 6 68 197 4.1 13.8
130

LCC and PBP

High-Volume Small-Diameter Results

High-Volume Large-Diameter Results

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple 

Payback 

Period

(years)

Average 

Lifetime 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

 irst Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

0 68 23 208 276 --- 13.8

1 73 22 195 268 3.7 13.8

2 75 17 149 224 1.1 13.8

3 100 10 92 192 2.4 13.8

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple 

Payback 

Period

(years)

Average 

Lifetime 

(years)

Installed 

Cost

 irst Year’s 

Operating 

Cost

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost

LCC

0 3814 221 2007 5821 --- 13.8

1 3801 213 1930 5731 0 13.8

2 4063 133 1208 5271 2.8 13.8

3 5730 66 637 6367 12.3 13.8
131

Issue 7: Market Shares by EL and Product Class

DOE requests information and comment on the market shares by efficiency 

level for each product class.

Issue 9: Lifetimes of High-Volume CFs

For high-volume CFs, DOE assumed the product lifetime is the same as that of 

low-volume CFs. DOE requests comments and data on product lifetimes of 

high-volume CFs.

Issue 10: CF Usage and Life Expectancy

DOE invites comment, input, and data on CF life expectancy and the 

relationship between CF usage and CF life expectancy.

Issue 11: Repair Costs

DOE invites comment, input, and data that can improve the estimate of repair 

costs, particularly repairs costs associated with DC motors.

LCC and PBP
132

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
133

• Purpose

– Quantify changes over time in product shipments due to potential 

amended energy efficiency standards over analysis period (2019-2048)

– Estimate the disaggregation of shipments into product classes and 

efficiency levels over time 

• Method

– Total shipments estimated using a stock-accounting methodology 

calibrated to historical shipments data

– Model accounts for product replacements, new construction, and new 

installations into existing buildings

– Shipments disaggregated by efficiency level using a consumer-choice 

model sensitive to first cost for low-volume ceiling fans and first cost 

and operating cost for high-volume ceiling fans

Shipments Analysis: Overview
134

Shipments Analysis: Low-Volume CF Inputs & Assumptions

Input Data Description/Source

Replacements Historical shipments from Appliance Magazine, NPD, and 

Energy Star. Retirement function from lifetime.

New Construction Annual Energy Outlook 2014, penetration from RECS2009

Existing Buildings Estimate of increasing penetration from RECS

Market Share Model counts from in-store visits and online retailers
135

• Sector Usage

• Estimates from manufacturers indicated ≈5% of low-volume CF shipments used in 

commercial sector

• Assumed similar usage between residential and commercial sectors

• Analyzed all low-volume CFs as being in residential sector

• Market shares by product class:

• DOE used shelf survey data to estimate CF market shares.

• DOE estimated multi-mount CFs installation configuration using results from an 

AcuPOLL survey*.

Shipments Analysis: Low-Volume CF Inputs & Assumptions

*AcuPOLL® Precision Research, Inc. 

Survey of Consumer Ceiling Fan Usage 

and Operations. May 31, 2013.

Estimated Market 

Shares

Multi-Mount 

Installation 

Configuration
136

Issue 5: Market Shares by Installation Configuration

DOE estimated that 21% of fans are hugger, 26% of fans are standard, and 53% 

are multi-mount. DOE welcomes comment, data, or information on these 

estimates.

Issue 15: CFs Installation Configurations

DOE requests information regarding the similarity of installation distributions 

between all CFs and the subset of multi-mount fans. DOE also requests 

information or comment on the assumption that "close-mount" CFs should be 

categorized as “standard” CFs and not “hugger” CFs.

Shipments Analysis: Low-Volume CF Inputs & Assumptions
137

• High-Volume Small Diameter

– Same retirement function as low-volume CFs

– Scaled shipments of low-volume fans by 0.12 assuming a similar 

penetration in commercial/industrial spaces

• High-Volume Large Diameter Shipments

– Same retirement function as low-volume CFs

– Assumed linear shipments trend associated with new installations 

starting in 2000 to match 2013 stock estimate.

Shipments Analysis: High-Volume CF Inputs & Assumptions

Issue 4: Shipments of High-Volume CFs

DOE requests data and information on current and historical shipments for 

both high-volume large-diameter CFs and high-volume small-diameter CFs. 
138

Shipments Analysis: Schematic

Replacements

New 

Construction

New 

Installations

Retirement Function

Historical Shipments

AEO Projection

RECS 2009

Total Shipments

Shipments

by Product 

Class and 

Efficiency 

Level

ConsumerChoice

Model
139

• Systematic decreases in manufacturing costs due to production 

experience are accounted for by incorporating price learning 

curves.

• Price learning (with a learning rate of 6%) was applied to electronic 

components in DC motors used in CFs.

• Applied to incremental cost difference between DC and AC motor.

Shipments Analysis: Price Learning
140

Shipments Analysis: Price Learning

Issue 31: DC Motors Learning Rate

DOE adopted a learning rate of 6% applied to the cost premium associated with 

a brushless DC motor based on information from a technical expert for lowvolume CFs. DOE requests stakeholder input on the validity of this learning 

rate, as applied to low-volume and high-volume fans.

Issue 32: Magnet Used in DC Motors

DOE requests information on the type of magnet used in DC motors and the 

associated cost of the magnet.
141

• The consumer-choice model projects market share for each product 

class at each EL

• Consumer chooses amongst set of finite options based on 

sensitivity to first cost and operating cost

• Model calculates probability consumer will choose each option

• High-volume CFs: Consumers sensitive to first cost and O&M cost 

• Low-volume CFs: Consumers only

 sensitive to first cost based on 

 analysis of NPD data

Shipments Analysis: Consumer-Choice Model

Issue 33: CF Product Class Switching

DOE requests input and data regarding 

the likelihood of consumers choosing 

between options in different product 

classes.
142

• DOE uses a relative price elasticity to estimate decrease in 

shipments due to a price increase due to implementation of a 

standard

• Since low-volume CFs and CFLKs are usually packaged together, 

DOE also considered the impact of a CFLK standard on CF 

shipments

Shipments Analysis: Impact of Standards

Issue 34: Price Elasticity

DOE requests data and information to more accurately estimate a price 

elasticity of demand specific to CFs. Specifically, DOE requests concurrent data 

on industry-wide shipments-weighted retail price and efficiency and average 

household income.
143

• Purpose

‒ Determine the projected national energy savings and consumer 

national net present value of a potential standard.

• Method

‒ Develop annual series of national energy and economic impacts.

‒ Use the shipments model to estimate the total stock of CFs in service 

each year. 

‒ Aggregate the costs and energy use per unit in any given year.

‒ Report estimates for economic impact as change in consumer National 

Net Present Value (NPV) (in constant year dollars).

‒ Account for the time-value of money through defined discount rates.

National Impact Analysis: Overview
144

National Impact Analysis Inputs

Input Description

Total Installed Cost Per-unit annual weighted-average values as a function of efficiency level taken from 

the LCC analysis.

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs

Repair and maintenance costs are assumed to be constant across efficiency level. 

Higher repair rate for CFs with DC motor.

Annual Energy Use Per-unit annual weighted-average values as a function of efficiency level taken from 

energy use analysis.

Base-Case Efficiencies Shipments-weighted efficiencies determined for the compliance year from the 

consumer-choice model in the base case. 

Standards-Case 

Forecasted Efficiencies

Shipments-weighted efficiencies determined for the compliance year from the 

consumer-choice model for each potential standards case. 

Energy Prices Average national forecasted energy prices from EIA AEO 2014 forecasts (to 2040) and 

extrapolation to 2048.

Full-Fuel Cycle Multiplier for the primary fuel (electricity) used by CFs.

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A-4.

Present Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2014.

National Impact Analysis
145

National Impact Analysis

NES(y) (AEC (y) AEC (y)) RF μ(y)  base  std  

Where:

NES(y) = National Energy Saving in year y (quads), and

AECbase(y) = base case annual national energy consumption, considering the 

full fuel cycle, for all product classes combined in year y (quads), 

and

AECstd(y) = standards case annual national energy consumption, considering 

the full fuel cycle, for all product classes combined in year y

(quads), and

RF = rebound rate factor = 1-rebound rate

μ(y) = full fuel cycle multiplier

• National energy primary energy savings is calculated using the 

following equation:
146

National Impact Analysis

NPV  PVS PVC

Where:

NPV = National net present value (2013$)

PVS = present value savings in operating cost (including costs for 

energy, repair, and maintenance in 2013$), and

PVC = present value of increase in total installed cost (including costs 

for equipment and installation in 2013$)

• National Net Present Value is calculated using the following equation. 

NPV was calculated using 3% and 7% discount rates:
147

EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4

LV – Standard 0.113 0.176 0.393 1.742

LV – Hugger 0.048 0.072 0.174 0.845

HVSD 0.173 0.392 0.745

HVLD 0.008 0.054 0.154

National Impact Analysis: Net FFC Energy Savings

Energy Savings (quads)
148

National Impact Analysis: Net Present Value

Product Class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4

LV – Standard 0.701 1.003 1.228 3.185

LV – Hugger 0.296 0.396 0.529 1.757

HVSD 0.854 1.995 3.675

HVLD 0.026 0.170 0.166

Product Class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4

LV – Standard 0.278 0.386 0.325 0.249

LV – Hugger 0.117 0.151 0.136 0.233

HVSD 0.333 0.794 1.454

HVLD 0.009 0.055 -0.026

NPV at 7% discount rate (billions 2013$)

NPV at 3% discount rate (billions 2013$)
149

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
150

Preliminary MIA

• Purpose

– The manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) identifies the impacts of energy 

conservation standards on manufacturers.

• Phase 1

– DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and identify 

important issues that require consideration.

• Phase 2

– DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and an interview questionnaire to 

guide subsequent discussions.

• Phase 3

– DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of standards both 

quantitatively (using the Government Regulatory Impact Model) and 

qualitatively (impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, direct 

employment, and regulatory burden).
151

Issue 39: Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE requests comment on its identification of key issues and requests data and 

information from interested parties that can assist in evaluating the potential 

impact on ceiling fan manufacturers.

Issue 37: Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

DOE invites interested parties to provide information regarding any small 

businesses that manufacture ceiling fans and should be consulted before DOE 

publishes a NOPR.

Issue 38: Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

DOE requests feedback on subgroups to analyze and/or characteristics 

appropriate for a separate subgroup analysis.

Preliminary MIA: Ceiling Fan Issues for Comment
152

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
153

Monetization 

of Emission 

Reductions 

Benefits

Life-Cycle 

Cost 

Subgroup 

Analysis

Manufacturer 

Impact 

Analysis

Utility 

Impact 

Analysis

Employment 

Impact 

Analysis

Regulatory

Impact 

Analysis

Revise

Preliminary

Analysis

Framework

Document 

Prelim 

Analysis NOPR 

Final

Rule

Analyses for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

Emissions 

Analysis
154

NOPR Analyses

• LCC Subgroup Analysis

– Effects on various national consumer subgroups

• Manufacturer Impact Analysis

– Continue work begun in the preliminary MIA

• Employment Impact Analysis

– Indirect effects on national employment

• Utility Impact Analysis

– Effects on generation capacity of utilities

• Emissions Analysis

– Effects on airborne pollutant emissions

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits

– Monetary benefits from emissions reduction

• Regulatory Impact Analysis

– Potential for non-regulatory approaches
155

CF ECS Pre-Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis

5 Markups Analysis

1 Scope of Coverage

6 Energy Use

2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis

7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis

9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
156

How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the CF rulemaking by:

– Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans;

– Docket Number EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AC87.

• Email: CeilingFan2012STD0045@ee.doe.gov

Postal: Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE-2J

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0121

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Suite 600

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20024

Tel: 202 586-2945

Energy Conservation Standards TSD Comment Period closes: 

November 28, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT
157

ECS PRE-ANALYSIS BACKUP SLIDES
158

Shipments
159

• Low-Volume Ceiling Fans

– Fit NPD data of market share as a 

function of retail price to determine 

consumer sensitivity to price

– Assumed consumers do not consider 

fan efficiency in purchasing decision.

• High Volume Ceiling Fans

– Assumed consumer sensitivity to both 

first cost and operating cost

– Estimated sensitivities using first cost, 

operating cost, and market share at 

each EL for HVLD fans.

Shipments Analysis: Estimating Sensitivities 

Low Volume High Volume

First Cost -0.028 -0.033

Operating Cost -0.086

Parameter Sensitivities for Consumer-Choice Model
160

– Price elasticity (e) relates decrease in shipments to an increase 

in price due to standard

– DOE’s estimate for the price elasticity of home appliances is 

based on a study of the price elasticity for refrigerators, clothes 

washers, and dishwashers

Shipments Analysis: Impact of Standards













 

Base

Std Base Price

ΔPrice Shipments Shipments 1 e

Where:

 = Shipments in a standard case,

 = Base case shipments, 

 = relative price elasticity (-0.34 in first year), 

 = change in price due to a standard,

 = price in the base case

Std ShipmentsBase Shipments ΔPriceBase Price e