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.gov2 

# 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 Remarks3 

# 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 Lunch4 

# 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 p m 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 Adjourn5 

# 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 Procedures7 

# 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 EDT9 

# 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 201611 

# 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 off

mode 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

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 714 

# 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: l ow - volume CFs and h igh

- 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

m m 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)

T able 1 : Low

- Volume CFs, 7 Feet or Less in Diameter17 

# 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 speed18 

# 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, high

volume CFs, hugger CFs, standard CFs, and multi

- mount CFs.19 

# CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 720 

# 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

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 722 

# 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 0.025 

# Proposed Metric: Efficiency Equation

• To calculate the efficiency of low

- volume CFs , DOE proposes to use the following equation:
CF Efficiency = CFM i 

### × OH i i = H , L 

### ( W Sb 

### × OH

S b 

### ) + W

i 

### × OH i i = H , L



### • To calculate the efficiency of high

- volume CFs , DOE proposes to use the following equation :


### CF Efficiency = CFM H 

### × OH

A 

### ( W S b 

### × OH

S b 

### ) + ( W

H 

### × OH A 

### )

Low

- Volume CF Equation Variables CFM i = airflow at a given speed OH i = operating hours at a given speed W i = power consumption at a given speed H = high speed L = low speed OH Sb = operating hours in standby mode W Sb = power consumption in standby mode High

- Volume CF Equation Variables CFM H = airflow at high speed OH A = operating hours in active mode W H = power consumption at high speed OH Sb = operating hours in standby mode W Sb = power consumption in standby mode26 

# 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

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 728 

# 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 low

volume 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 low

volume 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 manual31 

# 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

s ensor heads
Diagram adapted from ENERGY STAR’s guidance manual33 

# 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 multi

mount 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

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 738 

# 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 CFs41 

# 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 Downward43 

# 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 high

volume 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, high

volume 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 off

mode power consumption

.46 

# CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 747 

# 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 x i n

i = 1


### Lower confidence limit ( LCL )

0

. 9 = x − t 0

. 90 

### s n 0

. 9 • n – number of samples

• x i – the i th sample

• t 0.90 – t statistic for a 90%
one
- tailed confidence interval with n

- 1 degrees of freedom

• S

– sample standard deviation49 

# 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 x i n

i = 1 

### Upper confidence limit ( UCL )

1

. 1 = x − t 0

. 9 5 

### s n 1

. 1 • n – number of samples

• x i – the i th sample

• t 0.95 – t statistic for a 95%
one
- tailed confidence interval with n

- 1 degrees of freedom

• S

– sample standard deviation50 

# CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 751 

# 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 Low

Volume 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 model53 

### • 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 model54 

# 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

Proposed Metric 3
Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure 4

Closing Remarks 8 Covered Products 1

Proposed Additional Test Methods 5
Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan 6 Existing Test Procedure 2

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 757 

## Ceiling Fans Energy Conservation Standards
– Preliminary Analysis58 

# 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 EDT59 

# 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 2016 2017 2018 2020

2015 201961 

# 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 MIA63 

# 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 Analysis64 

# CF ECS Pre

- Analysis Presentation Overview

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 1065 

# 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

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 1068 

# Market & Technology Assessment

• Purpose:

• C haracterize 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 efficiency69 

# 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%

Multi

Mount 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 small

diameter 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; a ssumed to be same as for low

- volume CFs71 

# Market Assessment

Issue 2: Manufacturing Locations of High

- Volume CFs DOE requests comment and input on the manufacturing location for high

volume 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 feet75 

### • 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 material77 

# 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

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 1079 

### • 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 Purpose80 

# 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 out81 

# 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 out82 

# 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 out83 

# CF ECS Pre

- Analysis Presentation Overview

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 1084  Choose product classes and representative fan sizes to be analyzed.

 Select baseline efficiency level based on common features and bottom

of

- 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 Cost

Efficiency Relationship 

# Engineering Analysis

• Scope of Coverage Methodology85 • 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 Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes86 Select Baseline Efficiency Levels

Develop Efficiency Levels for Analysis 

# Engineering Analysis: Low

- Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE selected baseline models typical of the most common, least

efficient 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 market

weighted 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 unconventional

blade fans. Identify Higher Efficiency Units

Determine Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes87 Select Baseline Efficiency Levels

Develop Efficiency Levels for Analysis 

# Engineering Analysis: Low

- Volume Ceiling Fans

Identify Higher Efficiency Units

Determine Cost

Efficiency 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 Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes89 • 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 Cost

Efficiency 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

• Teardowns90 • 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 unconventional

blade 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 Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes91 

# Engineering Analysis: Low

- Volume Ceiling Fans

Select Baseline Efficiency Levels

Develop Efficiency Levels for Analysis Identify Higher Efficiency Units

Determine Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes

Unconventional

blade 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 Cost

Efficiency 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 = 1.3793 

# 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 Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes95 

# 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 Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes96 

# 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 HVSD/56

- inch 231.0 Determine Cost

- Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes97 • 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 Cost

Efficiency 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

• Depreciation98 • Similar to the low

- volume engineering analysis, DOE created cost and

efficiency deltas for each screened

- in design option for the high

volume engineering analysis.

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

– HVLD fan: 1. Eight to six blades 2. A irfoil blades 3. DC motor

– HVSD fan: 1. C urved blades 2. A irfoil blades 3. DC motor Select Baseline Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher Efficiency Units

Develop Efficiency Levels for Analysis 

# Engineering Analysis: High

- Volume Ceiling Fans

Determine Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes99 

# 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 Cost

Efficiency Relationship Choose Product Classes and Representative Sizes100 

# 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

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 10103 

### • 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 Analysis104 

# 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 Dealer105 

# Markups Analysis

• Home I mprovement Center and S howroom 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/ In

house Dealer 1.74 1.21 1.74 1.21
Sales Tax 1.071 1.071 1.071 1.071107 

### 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 Analysis108 

# CF ECS Pre

- Analysis Presentation Overview

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 10109 

# 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 Samples111 

# 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 Hours112 

# 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 p rovided 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 Operation113 

# 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 s ame as low



### volume CFs.



### • CFs with standby functionality were assumed to be in standby mode during all hours not in active mode.



## Standby114 

# 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 Conditioning115 

# 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 88116 

# 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 78117 

# 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 1899118 

### 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 Characterization119 

# CF ECS Pre

- Analysis Presentation Overview

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 10120 

# 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.



## Overview121 

# 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 Samples122 

# LCC and PBP

• D istribution 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

- Volume123 

# 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 2019124 

# 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 Cost125 

# 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 Cost126 

# 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 $1000127 

# 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 Rates129 

# 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 13.8130 

# 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 13.8131 

### 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 PBP132 

# CF ECS Pre

- Analysis Presentation Overview

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 10133 

### • 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: Overview134 

# 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 retailers135 

### • 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 Configuration136 

### 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 & Assumptions137 

### • 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 Consumer

Choice Model139 

### • 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 Learning140 

# 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 low

volume 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: Overview144 

## National Impact Analysis Inputs

Input Description

Total Installed Cost Per

- unit a nnual 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 Analysis145 

# National Impact Analysis

Where: NES(y) = National Energy Saving in year y (quads), and AEC b ase (y) = base case annual national energy consumption, considering the full fuel cycle, for all product classes combined in year y (quads), and AEC std (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

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

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 10150 

# 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 Comment152 

# CF ECS Pre

- Analysis Presentation Overview

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 10153 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 Analysis154 

# NOPR Analyses

• LCC Subgroup Analysis

– E ffects 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

– E ffects on generation capacity of utilities



### • Emissions Analysis

– Effects on airborne pollutant emissions



### • Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits

– M onetary benefits from emissions reduction



### • Regulatory Impact Analysis

– Potential for non

- regulatory approaches155 

# CF ECS Pre

- Analysis Presentation Overview

Screening Analysis 3

Markups Analysis 5 Scope of Coverage 1

Energy Use 6 Market & Technology 2

Closing Remarks 11 Engineering Analysis 4

Life
- Cycle Cost Analysis 7 Shipments; National Impact Analysis 8 Preliminary MIA 9
NOPR Analyses 10156 

# 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 EDT157 

# ECS PRE

- ANALYSIS BACKUP SLIDES158 

# Shipments159 

### • 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 Model160 

### – 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

W here: = 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