Appliances & Commercial Equipment Standards: Small Electric Motors

Appliances Home

About Standards

Laws & Regulations

EPACT 2005 Test

Procedures

Peer Review

Information Resources

Notices & Rules

Schedule Setting

Public Workshops &

Hearings

State Petitions

Useful Links

Commercial Equipment

ASHRAE Products

Clothes Washers

Distribution Transformers

Electric Motors

Furnaces & Boilers

High Intensity Discharge

Lamps

Refrigerated Beverage

Vending Machines

Refrigeration Equipment

-,mall EI^_crr'iL rlCtLrs

Unitary Air Conditioners

& Heat Pumps

Water Heaters

Residential Products

Page 1 of 1

EERE Home

Search Help a More Search Options

EERE Information Center

Small Electric Motors

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 established an energy

conservation program for major household appliances. The National Energy

Conservation Policy Act of 1978 amended EPCA to add Part C of Title III, which

established an energy conservation program for certain industrial equipment.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) also amended EPCA, and included

amendments that expanded title III to include small electric motors.

The Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Building Technologies Program conducts the program that develops equipment

energy conservation standards and has overall responsibility for rulemaking

activities for small electric motors in fulfillment of the law.

Some of the following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs.

Download Adobe Reader.

Determination Analysis

o Departmental Determination Concerning the Potential for Energy

Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors, Federal Register, July

10, 2006, (PDF 112 KB)

® Technical Support Document: Analysis of Energy Conservation

Standards for Small Electric Motors, June 2006, (PDF 625 KB)

o Draft Report: "Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for Small

Electric Motors," June 2003, (PDF 256 KB)

Contact Information

Antonio Bouza

Project Manager

(202) 586-4563

15 Printable Version

Webmaster I Security & Privacy I Building Technologies Program Home I EERE Home

U.S. Department of Energy

Content Last Updated: 08/03/2006

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliancestandards/commercial/small_electric_motors.html 8/14/2007

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
38799

Proposed Rules

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EE-DET-02-002]

RIN 1904-AA87

Energy Conservation Program for

Certain Industrial Equipment:

Determination Concerning the

Potential for Energy Conservation

Standards for Small Electric Motors

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Departmental determination.

SUMMARY : The Department of Energy

(DOE or the Department) has

determined, based on the best

information currently available, that

energy conservation standards for

certain single-phase, capacitor-start,

induction-run, small electric motors are

technologically feasible and

economically justified, and would result

in significant energy savings. This

determination initiates the process of

establishing, by notice and comment

rulemaking, test procedures and energy

conservation standards for this

equipment.

ADDRESSES : For access to the docket

(EE-DET-02-002) to read background

documents or comments received, visit

the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room

of the Building Technologies Program),

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945,

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at

the above telephone number for

additional information regarding

visiting the Resource Room. Please note:

The Department's Freedom of

Information Reading Room (formerly

Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building)

is no longer housing rulemaking

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department of

Energy, Building Technologies Program

(EE-2j), Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0121. Telephone (202) 586-4563, or

antonio.bouza@ee.doe.gov.

Thomas B. DePriest, Esq., U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of General

Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Telephone (202) 586-7432, or

th om as. d epri es tCQ@h q. d o e.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Rulemaking Procedures

C. Background

II. Discussion of the Analysis of Small Motors

A. Purpose and Content

B. Methodology

1. Market Research

2. Engineering Analysis

3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

4. National Energy Savings Analysis

5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis

C. Analysis Results

1. Engineering Analysis

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Analysis

3. National Energy Savings and Consumer

Impacts

D. Discussion

1. Significance of Energy Savings

2. Impact on Consumers

III. Conclusion

A. Determination

B. Future Proceedings

1. Introduction

A. Authority

The National Energy Conservation

Policy Act of 1978, amended the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or

the Act) to add a part C to title III of

EPCA, to establish an energyconservation program for certain

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-

6317) The Energy Policy Act of 1992

(EPACT), Public Law 102-486, also

amended EPCA, and included

amendments that expanded title III to

include small electric motors.

Specifically, EPACT amended section

346 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317) to provide

in paragraph (b) that the Secretary of

Energy must prescribe testing

requirements and energy conservation

standards for those small electric motors

for which the Secretary determines that

standards "would be technologically

feasible and economically justified, and

Federal Register

Vol. 71, No. 131

Monday, July 10, 2006

would result in significant energy

savings." (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)).

DOE construes section 346 in light of

the provisions of section 325(n) and (o)

of EPCA (which are in part B of title III

of EPCA and apply specifically to

residential appliances). DOE does so for

two reasons. First, section 346(c)

specifically makes the criteria in section

325(n) applicable to the determination

for small motor standards. (42 U.S.C.

6317(c)) Second, and more generally,

section 345(a) makes subsections (1)

through (s) of section 325 applicable to

provisions of part C of title III of EPCA

which includes section 346. (42 U.S.C.

6316(a)).

Section 325(n) deals with petitions for

amended standards. Paragraph (n)(2) of

section 325(n) provides for an initial

determination by DOE of technological

feasibility, economic justification, and

significant energy savings in deciding

whether to grant a petition. This initial

determination does not focus on specific

standard levels. Paragraph (n)(2) further

provides that the initial determination

does not create any presumption with

regard to the application of these

statutory criteria for promulgating

specific standards in a rulemaking

pursuant to DOE's decision to grant a

petition. Section 325(o)(2) requires that

determinations of technological

feasibility, economic justification, and

significant energy saving must

ultimately be based on specific

standards levels that were proposed for

public comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2))

The textual linkage of these provisions

of section 325 to section 346(b) implies

that today's determination is similar in

character and legal effect to an initial

determination upon a petition for new

or amended standards and that it does

not create any presumptions with regard

to the determination of specific standard

levels yet to be proposed.

In addition to this structural analysis

of EPCA, DOE is also of the view that,

as a matter of policy, it is impractical to

proceed on any other basis. It is

impractical because, even if one or more

design options have the potential for

achieving energy savings, a

determination that such savings could

in fact be achieved cannot be made

without first having developed test

procedures to measure the energy

efficiency of small motors designs, and

then conducting an in-depth analysis of

each design option. Such analysis might

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
38800 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 131 / Monday, July 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules

show that no standard meets all three of promulgation of test procedures and

the prescribed criteria: i.e., standards for small electric motors. In

technological feasibility, economic conducting rulemakings generally, the

justification and significant energy Department must, at a minimum, adhere

savings. to the procedures required by the

For these reasons, the Department Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

construes section 346(b) and related 551 et seq.) and section 501 of the

provisions as requiring it to: (1) Department of Energy Organization Act

Determine preliminarily whether (DOE Organization Act) (42 U.S.C.

standards for small motors would be 7191). Section 501 of the DOE

"technologically feasible and Organization Act in essence requires the

economically justified, and would result following: (1) Issuance of a notice of

in significant energy savings," and (2) if proposed rulemaking (NOPR), (2) an

energy conservation standards appear to opportunity for comment, (3) an

be warranted under these criteria, opportunity for presentation of oral

prescribe test procedures and conduct a comments, if there exists "a substantial

rulemaking concerning such standards. issue of fact or law" or if the rule will

During the standards rulemaking, the have a "substantial impact," and (4)

Department would describe whether, publication of the final rule

and at what level(s), to promulgate accompanied by appropriate

energy conservation standards. This explanation. Pursuant to Executive

decision would be based on in-depth Order 12889, "Implementation of the

consideration, with public participation, North American Free Trade

of the technological feasibility, Agreement," December 27, 1993, the

economic justification, and energy comment period on a NOPR must be at

savings of potential standard levels in least 75 days.

the context of the criteria and Consistent with section 345(a), in

procedures for prescribing new or promulgating test procedures for small

amended standards established by electric motors, the Department will

section 325(o) and (p) (42 U.S.C. also use procedures prescribed for

6295(o), (p)). adopting test procedures under parts B

Section 340(13)(F) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. and C of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)

6311(13)(F)) provides the following and 6314(b)) Therefore, in addition to

definition for "small electric motor": the generic procedural requirements

The term "small electric motor" means described above, the Department will

a NEMA [National Electrical provide an opportunity for oral

Manufacturers Association] general- comment (i.e., hold a public meeting) on

purpose alternating-current single-speed the proposed test procedures, regardless

induction motor, built in a two-digit of the "substantial issue" or "substantial

frame number series in accordance with impact" criteria, as it does in other

NEMA Standards Publication MG1- EPCA test procedure rulemakings. See,

1987. for example, 42 U.S.C. 6314(b).

In NEMA Standards Publication Consistent with section 345(a), in

MG1-1987, which is entitled "Motors determining by rule whether to impose

and Generators," the two-digit frame a specified standard level, the

series encompasses NEMA frame sizes Department will use the following

42, 48, and 56, and motors with procedures:

horsepower ratings ranging from 1/4 to 3 1. The Department will issue an

horsepower. These motors operate at 60 advance notice of proposed rulemaking

hertz and have either a single-phase or (ANOPR), followed by a comment

a three-phase electrical design. period (42. U.S.C. 6295 ( p)(1));

Section 346(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 2. The Department will issue a NOPR

6317(b)(3)) specifies that a standard setting forth the maximum efficiency

prescribed for small electric motors improvement that is technologically

shall not apply to any small electric feasible and, if the proposed standard

motor that is a component of a covered does not achieve this level, an

product under section 322(a) of EPCA explanation of why (42 U.S.C.

(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)) or of covered 6295(p)(2)); and

equipment under section 340 (42 U.S.C. 3. The Department will hold a public

6311). Such products and equipment meeting following issuance of the

include residential air conditioners and NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6306(a)(1).)

heat pumps, furnaces, refrigerators and In addition, the Department also has

freezers, clothes washers and dryers, a policy, in conducting rulemakings on

and commercial packaged air- appliance standards, of allowing 75

conditioning and heating equipment. days for comment on an ANOPR (rather

B. Rulemaking Procedures

than the 60 days required by EPCA),

with at least one public hearing or

EPCA does not explicitly identify the meeting during this period. Procedures

rulemaking procedures that govern for Consideration of New or Revised

Energy Conservation Standards for

Consumer Products, 10 CFR part 430,

subpart C, Appendix A (Process Rule).

C. Background

The Department began the analysis for

this determination by collecting

information from manufacturers of

small motors and others. The

Department conducted preliminary

analyses and shared its preliminary

findings regarding efficiency

improvement in small motors.

Subsequently, the Department received

data and information, including that

provided by both the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and

the Small Motors and Motion

Association (SMMA) (the NEMA/

SMMA Working Group).

A key issue that arose early in this

determination process is the definition

of a "small electric motor" and precisely

which motors are covered by this

rulemaking. The definition of a "small

electric motor" derives from the

definition of the term "general purpose

motor." The EPCA definition 1 of a

small motor is tied to the NEMA

Standards Publication MG1-198 7

performance requirements that NEMA

has established for general purpose

motors, such as the minimum levels for

breakdown and locked rotor torque for

small electric motors presented in MG1-

1987 paragraph 12.32.

In this determination process, the

Department considered only those

classes of small electric motors covered

under the EPCA definition which satisfy

the performance requirements for

general purpose motors established by

NEMA Standards Publication MG1-

1987, and which are not a component of

another product covered under EPCA.

In consideration of the above, DOE

finds that of the motors that satisfy the

frame-size requirements of the smallmotors definition, only a subset satisfies

the other performance requirements of

EPCA does not define the term "general purpose

motor," although it does define the terms "definite

purpose motor" and "special purpose motor."

According to EPCA, "definite purpose motor"

means "any motor designed in standard ratings

with standard operating characteristics or standard

mechanical construction for use under service

conditions other than usual or for use on a

particular type of application and which cannot be

used in most general purpose applications." Section

340(13)(B). (42 U.S.C. 6311 (13)(B)) Likewise,

"special purpose motor" means "any motor, other

than a general purpose motor or definite purpose

motor, which has special operating characteristics

or special mechanical construction, or both,

designed for a particular application. " Id. at (C).

Consequently, DOE must derive the term "general

purpose" by eliminating those definite purpose

motors and special purpose motors and must

subsequently define the term within the context of

NEMA performance characteristics that can operate

successfully in many different applications.

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 131 /Monday, July 10, 2006 /Proposed Rules 38801

the definition. Among single-phase

motors with a two-digit frame size, the

Department found that only capacitorstart motors, including both capacitorstart, induction run and capacitor-start,

capacitor-run motors, can meet the

torque requirements for NEMA generalpurpose motors. Among three-phase

small motors, the Department found that

only non-servo motors can meet the

NEMA performance requirements for

general-purpose motors. Hence, the

Department's analysis covered only

these types of single- and three-phase

small motors, and the Department

identifies them in this determination as

"considered small motors." The annual

commercial sales volume of considered

small motors is approximately four

million units for capacitor-start motors

and one million units for three-phase

motors. These motors are used in a wide

variety of commercial and industrial

machine and processing applications,

with the largest being pumping

equipment and commercial/industrial

heating, ventilating, and airconditioning equipment rated over

760,000 British thermal units per hour

(Btu/h).

The Department then conducted an

analysis that estimated the likely range

of energy savings and economic benefits

that would result from energy

conservation standards for small electric

motors, and prepared a report

describing its analysis. In June 2003, the

Department made the report "Analysis

of Energy Conservation Standards for

Small Electric Motors" available for

public comment on its Web site at

http://www.eere.energy.govlbuildingsl

a p pl i an ce_stan d and s/commercial /

small electric motors.html. The report

made no recommendation concerning

the determination that the Department

should make.

The Department received comments

concerning its analysis of small motors

from NEMA, SMMA, and the American

Council for an Energy-Efficient

Economy (ACEEE). In general, the

comments received did not criticize

specific elements of the Department's

technical analysis. The ACEEE comment

indicated that ACEEE found the analysis

to be "technically robust." (ACEEE, No.

3 at p. 1) 2 However, NEMA asserted

that energy conservation standards for

certain small motors were not

2 A notation in the form "ACEEE, No. 3 at p. 1"

identifies a written comment the Department has

received and has included in the docket of this

rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a

comment (1) by the American Council for an

Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), (2) in

document number 3 in the docket of this

rulemaking (maintained in the Resource Room of

the Building Technologies Program), and (3)

appearing on page 1 of document number 3.

economically justified and would harm

U.S. motor manufacturers, and ACEEE

claimed that energy conservation

standards for small motors are unlikely

to save much energy and would be a

diversion from exploring other energy

savings approaches. (NEMA, No. 1 at p.

2; ACEEE, No. 3 at p. 2) ACEEE

commented that the Department could

achieve greater energy savings if it did

not restrict its analysis to capacitor-start,

capacitor-run and capacitor-start,

induction-run single-phase motors, and

three-phase motors. ACEEE commented

that these categories of small motors

account for only four percent of

domestic shipments and that much

greater energy savings could be realized

by switching between different types of

small motors. (ACEEE, No. 3 at p. 1)

ACEEE suggested that the Department

encourage users of small motors to shift

between classes of motors, such as from

split-phase and shaded-pole motors to

capacitor-start, capacitor-run and

capacitor-start, induction-run motors; it

commented that the substitution would

yield greater savings than improvements

that are restricted to the category of

capacitor-start, induction-run motors.

Further, ACEEE suggested replacing

considered small motors with advanced

types, such as electronically

commutated permanent magnet motors.

(ACEEE, No. 3 at p. 1) While the

Department understands ACEEE's

concern, the market transformation that

ACEEE suggests is outside the scope of

this determination since the purpose of

energy conservation standards is to

increase the energy performance of

regulated products rather than change

the product-purchase-and-use behavior

of consumers.

The SMMA generally supported the

findings of the NEMA/SMMA Working

Group. (SMMA, No. 2 at p. 1) The main

findings of the NEMA/SMMA Working

Group pertained to the cost-efficiency

relationship for small motors, and these

findings were incorporated into the

Department's engineering analysis for

this determination.

NEMA commented that many small

motors are used in other equipment that

is subject to Federal energy conservation

standards, and that small motors in

those product applications are not

within the scope of the Department's

analysis and proceeding. (NEMA, No. 1

at p. 1) The Department agrees with

NEMA, insofar as the EPCA definition

of small motors and exclusions

constrain the motors considered in the

Department's analysis to a subset of the

total population of small electric

motors. As stated above, pursuant to

section 346(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C.

6317(b)(3)), the Department did not

consider in its analysis motors that are

a component of a covered product or

equipment.

In a related comment, NEMA

requested that the Department designate

small motors as "covered equipment,"

which it asserted was done for generalservice incandescent lamps although

there was no standard for such lamps,

and cited 59 FR 49468 (September 28,

1994). NEMA requested the designation

so that States that are attempting to set

efficiency standards for small motors

would be preempted by the Federal

action. (NEMA, No. 1' at p. 1) Section

345(a) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

provides in part that section 327 of the

Act (42 U.S.C. 6297), which addresses

preemption of State energy conversation

requirements by EPCA, shall apply to

various equipment covered by part C of

title III of EPCA, which includes small

electric motors. Thus, State energy use

and efficiency requirements for "small

electric motors," as defined in 42 U.S.C.

6311(13)(F), are already preempted to

the extent provided in section 327 of

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6297). No further

action by DOE is needed to provide for

such preemption. Small motors that are

not within EPCA's definition of small

motors are not covered by EPCA;

therefore, the Act does not preempt

State energy use and efficiency

requirements with respect to motors not

covered by EPCA.

II. Discussion of the Analysis of Small

Motors

A. Purpose and Content

The Department performed an

analysis of the feasibility of achieving

significant energy savings as a result of

energy conservation standards for

considered small electric motors. The

Department presents the results of this

analysis in a technical support

document (TSD) for this determination.

In subsequent analyses for the standards

ANOPR, NOPR, and final rule, DOE will

perform the more robust analyses

required by EPCA. These analyses will

involve more precise and detailed

information that the Department will

develop and receive during the

standards rulemaking process, and will

detail the effects of proposed energy

conservation standards for small electric

motors.

B. Methodology

To address EPCA requirements that

DOE determine whether energy

conservation standards for small motors

would be technologically feasible and

economically justified, and result in

significant energy savings (42 U.S.C.

6317(b)(1)), the Department's analysis

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
38802 Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 131 /Monday, July 10, 2006 /Proposed Rules

consisted of five major elements: (1)

Market research to better understand

where and how small motors are used,

(2) engineering analysis to estimate how

different design options affect efficiency

and cost, (3) life-cycle cost (LCC)

analysis to estimate the costs and

benefits to users from increased

efficiency in small motors, (4) national

energy savings analysis to estimate the

potential energy savings on a national

scale, and (5) national consumer

impacts analysis to estimate potential

economic costs and benefits that would

result from improving energy efficiency

in the considered small motors. The

following is a brief description of each

element.

1. Market Research

The Department conducted research

on the market for considered small

motors, including annual shipments, the

current range of energy efficiencies,

motor applications and utilization,

market structure, and distribution

channels. It used information from

original equipment manufacturers

(OEMs), trade associations that support

industrial sectors, consultation with

small motor manufacturers, and

independent experts. Also, NEMA

provided data, on its own initiative, to

the Department on sales of two-digitframe small motors to domestic

customers by its member manufacturers,

covering the period from 1971 to 2001.

Based on its market research, the

Department estimated that, on average,

capacitor-start and three-phase small

motors are used 2,500 hours annually at

a loading of 70 percent of rating.

Based on its market research,

including input from OEMs that

incorporate small motors into their

products and the NEMA/SMMA

Working Group, the Department used

seven years as the mean lifetime for

capacitor-start motors, and nine years

for three-phase motors.

Also based on its market research, the

Department determined that the small

motors considered in this determination

are used in commercial and industrial

settings with the corresponding tariffs.

The Department estimated that

approximately three-fourths of

capacitor-start motors are used by utility

customers on a commercial tariff, while

virtually all users of small, three-phase

motors are on an industrial tariff.

Industrial electricity prices tend to be

lower than commercial prices.

2. Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis, the

Department examined methods for

increasing energy efficiency that

included increasing the amount of

active material (e.g., the diameter of

wire conductors), substituting a higher

grade of steel for the magnetic

components, improving the mechanical

components and design (winding,

bearings, and fan), and improving the

quality control of components and

assembly. Manufacturers of small

motors use all of these methods of

motor-efficiency improvement in their

design and production processes. In

general, the Department found that

these methods may increase either the

motor cost or size if there are no other

changes in the motor-design parameters.

In particular, the Department evaluated

several ways to achieve increased

efficiency, including (1) changing the

quality of the grade of electrical steel,

(2) changing the quantity of electrical

steel (stack length), and (3) changing the

magnetic flux density by adjusting the

effective turns in the copper windings

and/or changing the thickness of the

steel laminations in the core of a small

motor. In its preliminary engineering

evaluation, the Department found the

efficiency improvement method of

changing flux density to be the most

expensive of the three methods. As a

result, the Department analyzed only

the two lower-cost efficiency

improvement methods to help maintain

the simplicity and clarity of its analysis.

In particular, the Department

examined a one-half-horsepower,

capacitor-start, induction-run motor and

a one-horsepower, three-phase motor as

prototypes for improving the energy

efficiency of small motors. To estimate

the efficiency changes and additional

costs resulting from design changes, the

Department used two sets of data. The

Department derived the first set by

engaging an independent motor

industry expert to estimate motorefficiency costs from motor test data and

design cost estimates. The expert

obtained motor test data for a sample of

small motors using a traditional motor

performance program based on

equivalent-circuit analysis to calculate

efficiency changes resulting from

changes in steel grades and stack

lengths. This methodology was similar

to methods commonly used by motor

manufacturers. The NEMA/SMMA

Working Group provided, on its own

initiative, a comparable set of data in an

aggregated form.

The Department had a concern that

the cost-efficiency curves presented in

the June 2003 report "Analysis of

Energy Conservation Standards for

Small Electric Motors" were based on

2001 materials pricing data, which

represented a relative low-price point

for many electrical steels (i.e., the steel

used for building electric motor rotors

and stators). The price of electrical

steels has increased since 2001.

However, the slope of the engineering

analysis cost-efficiency curves depends

on the price difference between the

baseline unit (i.e., low efficiency steel)

and the higher efficiency unit (i.e.,

better grade steel). Electrical steel price

data collected in 2005 for the

distribution transformer standards

rulemaking along with a check of 2001

and 2005 pricing for specific steels used

in small motors verified that the price

differential between the baseline and

high-efficiency steels did not increase

between 2001 and 2005. For this reason,

the Department determined that it was

not necessary to update the material

prices for the engineering analysis,

because updating the material prices, or

calculating average material prices

representative of a multi-year period,

would not significantly change the

Department's engineering results.

3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Based on its engineering analysis of

the available technical data, the

Department conducted a life-cycle cost

(LCC) analysis to estimate the net

benefit to users from increased

efficiency in capacitor-start and threephase small motors. The LCC analysis

compared the additional up-front cost of

a higher-efficiency motor to the

discounted value of electricity savings

over the life of the motor. The

Department's LCC analysis used the

following inputs: estimated average

motor use in terms of hours and loading

and typical motor lifetime (discussed

above), estimated average prices for base

motors and more-efficient motors,

average electricity prices paid by users

of capacitor-start and three-phase small

motors, and the discount rate.

The Department received significant

comment regarding its estimates of

motor lifetimes. The Department

understands that the typical lifetime of

a small motor is not well documented.

Most industry experts with whom the

Department consulted suggested the

average life for considered motors is at

most ten years, depending on the use

and physical environment. The NEMA/

SMMA Working Group estimated an

average life of five years for a capacitorstart motor and ten years for a threephase motor. In view of these

considerations, the Department

estimated the mean lifetime for a

capacitor-start motor at seven years and

a three-phase motor at nine years.

Moreover, the Department believes that

the potential lifetime of a considered

motor may be greater than that of the

driven equipment. Thus, the actual

motor lifetime may be limited by the

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 131/Monday, July 10, 2006/Proposed Rules 38803

lifetime of the equipment it drives. In

view of this issue, NEMA commented

that the economic justification of energy

conservation standards for the user was

not good. Where simple payback

periods range from 4.9 to 9 years, NEMA

questioned whether the equipment

driven by the small motor will last that

long and, thus, enable the payback for

the higher cost of improved efficiency to

be realized. (NEMA, No. 1 at p. 2).

The Department acknowledges that a

small motor's lifetime could be limited

by the life of the equipment it drives.

The Department used a distribution of

lifetimes for small electric motors in its

analysis. For capacitor-start motors, the

analysis used the range of 5 to 9 years

for the lifetime, and for polyphase

motors the Department used a range of

7 to 11 years. Given existing data and

the balance of diverse stakeholder and

expert comments, the Department

considers its current lifetime estimates

to be reasonable and accurate for this

determination analysis.

The Department estimated the base

purchase price of typical capacitor-start

and three-phase small motors using (1)

prices listed in the 2001-2002 W.W.

Grainger, Inc., catalog, (2) estimates of

the percentage of the list price paid in

different motor distribution channels,

and (3) estimates of the distribution of

sales among the three channels (motor

manufacturer to OEM, motor

manufacturer to distributor to original

equipment manufacturer, and motor

manufacturer to distributor to end user).

The Department derived the price for a

motor that incorporated design changes

to improve efficiency by applying the

estimated percentage of incremental

cost from the engineering analysis to the

average base price of the motor

estimated from the Grainger, Inc.,

catalog.

The Department estimated average

commercial and industrial electricity

prices using the 2010 and 2020 forecasts

from the Energy Information

Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy

Outlook 2006. It then derived average

prices paid by users of capacitor-start

and three-phase small motors based on

the tariff classes of users (discussed

above). Given that relatively small

industrial establishments use

considered small, polyphase (i.e., threephase) motors more than larger

establishments, and that small

industrial establishments have higher

electricity tariffs than larger industry,

the Department estimated the electricity

price for polyphase motors as five

percent higher than the national average

industrial price of electricity.

The Department derived a discount

rate based on the weighted-average cost

of capital for representative companies

using products containing the

considered small motors. After

deducting for expected inflation, the

Department estimated the average cost

of capital for considered small motor

owners as 7.5 percent.

4. National Energy Savings Analysis

To estimate national energy savings

for small motors sold from 2010 through

2030, the Department calculated the

energy consumption of two typical sizes

of small motors: One-half horsepower,

capacitor-start, induction-run motors,

and one-horsepower, three-phase

motors. The Department used both its

own data and the NEMA/SMMA

Working Group data for capacitor-start,

induction-run motors. However, it used

only its own data for three-phase motors

because the NEMA/SMMA Working

Group based its analysis on a one-half

horsepower motor, which is less

common than the one-horsepower

motor, and which therefore has losses

that may not be representative of

considered small, three-phase motors.

The Department calculated the energy

efficiencies of small motors with

improved-steel-grade and increasedstack-length design options, and

extrapolated the results to a national

average for all new capacitor-start,

induction-run and three-phase motors

(constituting the energy conservation

standards cases).

The Department estimated the energy

savings of the standards cases relative to

two base cases-little improvement and

moderate improvement in efficiency-in

the absence of any standards. The

Department formulated each base case

using information from historical

trends, and input from the NEMA/

SMMA Working Group, provided on its

own initiative. The Department also

evaluated two small-motors-shipments

scenarios, estimating national energy

savings for average annual growth in

shipments of 1 percent and 1.5 percent.

These shipments scenarios are also

based upon historical trends and input

from the NEMA/SMMA Working Group.

To estimate potential energy savings

from a possible energy conservation

standard, the Department used an

accounting model that calculated total

end-use electricity savings in each year

of a 35-year forecast. The model

featured a product-retirement function

to calculate the number of units sold in

a given year, or vintage, which would

still be in operation in future years.

Some of the small motors sold in 2030

will operate through 2040. The

retirement function assumed that

individual motor lifetime is evenly

distributed in a five-year interval

around the mean lifetime.

The Department calculated primary

energy savings associated with end-use

electricity savings using data from EIA's

Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO).

These data provided an average

multiplier for relating end-use

electricity to primary energy use (energy

consumption by the power plant) for

each year from 2010 to 2020. The

Department extrapolated the trend in

these years to derive factors for 2021 to

2040.

5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis

The Department estimated national

economic impacts on end users in terms

of the net present value (NPV) of

cumulative benefits from 2010 to 2040.

It considered these impacts under the

same range of scenarios as it did for

estimating national energy savings. It

used the incremental equipment costs

and energy savings for each energyefficiency level that it applied in the

LCC analysis. To simplify the analysis,

the Department estimated the value of

energy savings using the average AEO

forecast electricity price from 2010 to

2020. The Department discounted future

costs and benefits by using a sevenpercent discount rate, according to the

"Guidelines and Discount Rates for

Benefit Analysis of Federal Programs,"

issued by the Office of Management and

Budget in 1992 (Circular No. A-94,

Revised).

C. Analysis Results

1. Engineering Analysis

As described above, the Department

conducted separate analyses of changes

in the grade of electrical steel and a

change in the stack length to improve

the energy efficiency of small motors. In

each case, the Department gave the base

motor a "per-unit" cost of one. The

Department related all design-option

changes to the base motor per-unit cost

of one. For example, if a change in

electrical steel created a 10 percent

change in the cost of materials, such as

electrical steel, the Department assigned

the per-unit number of 1.10 for the new

design. In addition, the NEMA/SMMA

Working Group provided, on its own

initiative, comparable data, where each

of four manufacturers selected a typical

small motor to use as the base motor.

For steel-grade design options, the

NEMA data refer to the average values

of the four manufacturers. For stackchange design options, the NEMA/

SMMA Working Group provided data

that it considered most typical. Tables 1

and 2 summarize the results of the

analysis of steel-grade and stack-length

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
38804 Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 131 /Monday, July 10, 2006 /Proposed Rules

changes. For capacitor-start motors, the that are common for one-half

Department analyzed the cost of horsepower motors.

efficiency improvements for both 56- Overall, the Department's analysis

frame and 48-frame motors. These two and the NEMA/SMMA Working Group

frames represent distinct frame sizes data were more comparable for the

stack-change design options than they

were for the design options related to

steel-grade changes. The NEMA/SMMA

Working Group estimated a much

smaller efficiency improvement due to

steel grade improvements than the

Department's analysis.

TABLE 1.-CAPACITOR-START MOTORS, 1/2 HORSEPOWER , 4-POLE, OPEN DRIP-PROOF

Grade A

Steel-Grade Design Options

Grade B Grade B+ M47

DOE Analysis, 56-Frame:

Per-unit Cost ............................................................................................. 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.25

Efficiency .................................................................................................. 53.9% 57.4% 59.3% 60.5%

DOE analysis, 48-Frame:

Per-unit Cost ............................................................................................. 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.25

Efficiency .................................................................................................. 62.6% 65.4% 66.8% 69.0%

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

NEMA/SMMA data:

Per-unit Cost ......................................................................................................................... 1.00 1.10 1.21

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 60.0% 61.7% 62.9%

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

Stack-Change Design Options

DOE analysis, 56-Frame:

Per-unit Cost .............................................................................................

Efficiency

DOE analysis, 48-Frame:.

Per-unit Cost .............................................................................................

Efficiency ..................................................................................................

NEMA/SMMA data:

Per-unit Cost .............................................................................................

Efficiency ..................................................................................................

1.00

53.9%

1.00

62.6%

1.00

62.0%

1.09

58.1%

1.07

63.5%

1.10

64.3%

TABLE 2.-POLYPHASE MOTORS, 4-POLE, OPEN DRIP-PROOF

Grade A+

Steel-Grade Design Options

1.19

60.3%

1.15

64.4%

1.20

65.5%

Grade B+

1.29

62.0%

1.22

65.1%

1.30

66.5%

M47

DOE analysis, 1 horsepower:

Per-unit Cost ......................................................................................................................... 1.0 1.04 1.20

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 76.4% 78.3% 81.2%

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

NEMA/SMMA data, 1/2 horsepower:

Per-unit Cost ......................................................................................................................... 1.00 1.10 1.20

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 68.1% 70.7% 72.1%

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

Stack-Change Design Options

DOE analysis , 1 horsepower:

Per-unit Cost ............................................................................................. 1.00 1.06 1.18 1.24

Efficiency .................................................................................................. 76.4% 77.2% 78.9% 79.2%

NEMA/SMMA analysis, 1/2 horsepower:

Per-unit Cost ............................................................................................. 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.24

Efficiency .................................................................................................. 72.2% 73.1% 73.9% 74.1%

As stated above, the Department

received no comments criticizing

specific elements of its technical

analysis. NEMA agreed with the

Department's conclusions that it is

technically feasible to increase the

efficiency of small motors in frame sizes

42, 48, and 56 for three-phase and

single-phase motors, and that improving

grades of steel and redesigning

laminations will provide increased

efficiency, but at much higher capital

costs. (NEMA, No. 1 at p. 2) ACEEE

found the Department's analysis to be

"technically robust." (ACEEE, No. 3 at

p. 1).

NEMA commented that manufacturer

costs and impacts from a possible

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 131/Monday, July 10, 2006 /Proposed Rules 38805

standard may be high. It asserted that

there will be high capital costs and,

presumably, less economic benefit to

the manufacturer than the Department

described in its June 2003 determination

report "Analysis of Energy Conservation

Standards for Small Electric Motors."

(NEMA, No. 1 at p. 2) While the

economic impacts of a possible standard

on manufacturers may be substantial,

DOE did not evaluate the full impact of

possible standards on manufacturers in

this determination. The Department

instead used the presence of highefficiency designs in the marketplace as

an indicator of the probable economic

feasibility of manufacturing high

efficiency designs. The Department will

address detailed economic impacts on

manufacturers at such time that it

conducts a manufacturer impact

analysis for an energy efficiency

standards rulemaking.

In addition, NEMA commented that

there was a strong likelihood that OEMs

will switch to alternative small motors

that are not covered to avoid any added

costs resulting from energy conservation

standards. (NEMA, No. 1 at p. 2) The

Department believes that shifting from,

for example, a capacitor-start,

induction-run small motor to a less

efficient shaded-pole or split-phase

small motor design would reduce

potential energy savings. However, the

Department understands that small

motors are not generally

interchangeable. Physical constraints in

some current equipment designs may

preclude the substitution of another

type of motor for a considered small

motor. Lacking clear evidence or data

regarding the change in sales of

considered small motors due to possible

standards, the Department did not

model this potential phenomenon in the

determination analysis. (As explained

below, the Department intends to

undertake a rulemaking to develop

standards for small motors. If it appears

to DOE in the initial phases of the

rulemaking that the potential for motor

switching warrants further examination,

the Department will address that issue

in its analyses during the rulemaking.)

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Analysis

The Department presents key results

for capacitor-start motors in Tables 3

and 4 below. Using the DOE data for

capacitor-start motors, the steel-grade

options all have lower LCC than the

base motor. However, results using the

NEMA/SMMA average data show an

increase in LCC at steel grade 3, with no

change in LCC at steel grade 2. The DOE

analysis shows the stack-length options

increasing the LCC, while the NEMA/

SMMA results show a slight decrease

for the first option, but then an increase

in LCC for the higher-efficiency stack

change options.

TABLE 3.-IMPACTS OF EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT ON TYPICAL END USER, CAPACITOR-START, 1/2 HORSEPOWER, DOE

DATA*

Steel grade

Motor Price-Buyer** .................................

Annual Operating Cost ............................

Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR) ......................

Change in LCC (WRT Base) ...................

Percent Change in LCC ...........................

Payback Period (years) ...........................

Grade A

(base)

Grade 1

(base)

Grade B Grade B+ M47

* Data refer to a specific typical motor.

** Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.

$106

$72

$487

-$14.07

-2.8%

1.0

Plus stack

$111

$74

$502

$1.51

0.3%

6.7

TABLE 4.-IMPACTS OF EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT ON TYPICAL END USER, CAPACITOR-START, 1/2 HORSEPOWER, NEMA/

SMMA DATA

Steel grade *

Motor Price-Buyer *** ...............................

Annual Operating Cost ............................

Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR) ......................

Change in LCC (WRT Base) ...................

Percent Change in LCC ...........................

Payback Period (years) ...........................

* Data are average of four manufacturers.

** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor.

-Estimated by DOE based on Grainger catalog prices.

Tables 5 and 6 present results for

small, polyphase motors. Although the

base motors are different in the DOE and

NEMA/SMMA data sets, it is the

relative change for each motor that is of

most interest. Using the DOE data, the

Grade 2

$128

$76

$532

-$0.01

0.0%

5.3

$114

$70

$486

-$14.47

-2.9%

2.2

Grade 3

$141

$75

$537

$5.20

1.0%

6.7

$129

$68

$490

-$11.37

-2.3%

3.7

Base

steel-grade options both have lower LCC

than the base motor. However, results

based on the NEMA/SMMA average

data show an increase in LCC at steel

grade 3, with the LCC at steel grade 2

being equivalent to that for the base

Stack change**

Plus stack

$128

$73

$516

-$2.63

-0.5%

4.3

$119

$73

$505

$4.05

0.8%

7.2

$140

$72

$520

$1.41

0.3%

5.6

Plus 3 stack

$126

$72

$508

$7.47

1.5%

7.9

Plus 3 stack

$152

$71

$526

$7.36

1.4%

6.7

motor. Using the DOE data, the stacklength options moderately increase the

LCC relative to the base motor, while

the increase in LCC is more pronounced

in the results based on the NEMA/

SMMA data.

Stack change

Plus 2 stack

Plus 2 stack

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
38806 Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 131 /Monday, July 10, 2006 /Proposed Rules

TABLE 5.-IMPACTS OF EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT ON TYPICAL END USER, POLYPHASE 1 HORSEPOWER, DOE DATA*

Steel grade

Grade A

(base)

Motor Price -Buyer" .........................................................

Annual Operating Cost ....................................................

Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR) ..............................................

Change in LCC (WRT Base) ...........................................

Percent Change in LCC ...................................................

Payback Period (years) ...................................................

* Data refer to a specific typical motor.

** Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.

Grade 1

(base)

Grade B+

$124

$96

$736

-$10.49

-1.4%

2.0

Plus stack

$126

$97

$747

$0.86

0.1%

7.3

$140

$95

$748

$1.69

0.2%

6.9

TABLE 6.-IMPACTS OF EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT ON TYPICAL END USER, POLYPHASE 1/2 HORSEPOWER, NEMA/SMMA

DATA

Steel grade *

Motor Price-Buyer *** ...............................

Annual Operating Cost ............................

Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR) ......................

Change in LCC (WRT Base) ...................

Percent Change in LCC ...........................

Payback Period (years) ...........................

* Data are average of four manufacturers.

** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor.

-Estimated by DOE based on Grainger catalog prices.

3. National Energy Savings and

Consumer Impacts

The Department estimated national

energy savings and consumer impacts of

energy conservation standards for the

considered small motors using its own

engineering analysis data and the

NEMA/SMMA Working Group data.

The Department assumed that energy

conservation standards would take

effect in 2010, and estimated cumulative

energy savings and NPV impacts

relative to alternative base cases.

Grade 2

$138

$51.9

$469

-$0.02

0.0%

6.4

$151

$50.9

$475

$6.02

1.3%

8.4

M47

$143

$93

$733

-$12.98

-1.7%

4.1

Base

The results using the Department's

analysis of design options indicate

cumulative energy savings for capacitorstart, induction run-small motors

ranging from 0.47 to 0.59 quad (see table

7). The corresponding NPV ranges from

$0.28 to $0.35 billion. The results based

on the data provided by the NEMA/

SMMA Working Group, on its own

initiative, show lower energy savings

and economic benefits.

The results using the Department's

analysis of design options for threephase small motors indicate cumulative

energy savings from 0.14 to 0.19 quad

Stack change**

Plus stack

$136

$50.2

$456

$6.48

1.4%

17.9

Stack change

Plus 2 stack

Plus 2 stack

$146

$49.7

$463

$12.96

2.9%

17.9

Plus 3

Stack

$148

$95

$752

$6.14

0.8%

8.1

Plus 3 stack

$156

$49.5

$472

$22.14

4.9%

23.9

(see table 8). The corresponding NPV

ranges from $0.08 to $0.11 billion. For

the three-phase motors, the Department

did not estimate national impacts using

the data provided by the NEMA/SMMA

Working Group, on its own initiative,

because these data were based on a onehalf horsepower motor instead of the

more typical one-half horsepower size.

The NEMA/SMMA data for halfhorsepower motors show some

efficiency gains, but with an increase in

LCC, which would lead to a negative

NPV.

TABLE 7.-CUMULATIVE ENERGY AND CONSUMER IMPACTS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT FOR 1/2 HORSEPOWER

CAPACITOR START-INDUCTION- RUN MOTORS PROJECTED TO BE SOLD IN THE 2010-2030 PERIOD*

Future scenario

Energy savings

(quads)

DOE NEMA/SMMA

(year 2005 dollars in billions,

NPV

discounted at 7 percent to

2005)

DOE

Low-efficiency-gain base case , low shipments growth ...................................

Low-efficiency-gain base case , high shipments growth ..................................

Moderate-efficiency -gain base case , low shipments growth ...........................

Moderate-efficiency -gain base case, high shipments growth .........................

Grade 3

0.54

0.59

0.47

0.51

0.19

0.21

0.12

0.12

0.33

0.35

0.28

0.30

NEMA/ SMMA

0.04

0.04

-0.05

-0.05

*The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of highest energy savings and most favorable consumer NPV.

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 131 /Monday, July 10, 2006 /Proposed Rules 38807

TABLE 8.-CUMULATIVE ENERGY AND CONSUMER IMPACTS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT FOR ONEHORSEPOWER THREE-PHASE MOTORS PROJECTED To BE SOLD IN THE 2010-2030 PERIOD*

Future scenario

Energy savings

(quads)

DOE NEMA/SMMA

NPV

(year 2005 dollars in billions,

discounted at 7 percent to

2005)

DOE

Low-efficiency-gain base case, low shipments growth ...................................

Low-efficiency-gain base case, high shipments growth ..................................

Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, low shipments growth ...........................

Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, high shipments growth .........................

0.17

0.19

0.14

0.15

(I)

(')

(')

(')

0.10

0.11

0.08

0.09

NEMA/ SMMA

(')

(/')

(1)

*The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of highest energy savings and most favorable consumer NPV.

1 Not available.

The differences between the results

using the Department's analysis of

design options and those using the data

that the NEMA/SMMA Working Group

provided on its own initiative reflect

differences in estimates of the efficiency

and cost increases associated with

different design options.

D. Discussion

1. Significance of Energy Savings

Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C.

6317(b)(1)) mandates the Department to

determine whether energy conservation

standards for small motors would result

in "significant energy savings." NEMA

commented that energy conservation

standards for the considered small

motors are not likely to save the

threshold amount of one quad. (NEMA,

No. 1 at p. 1) While the term

"significant" is not defined in the Act,

the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural

Resources Defense Council v.

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C.

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress

intended "significant" energy savings in

a similar context in section 325 of the

Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(13)) to be

savings that were not "genuinely

trivial." Using the Department's analysis

of design options, the estimated energy

savings of 0.61 to 0.78 quad over a 20-

year period for the considered small

motors are comparable to those the

Department found to be significant for

room air conditioners, where energy

savings projected to result from

standards ranged from 0.36 to 0.96 quad

over a 30-year period. 62 FR 50122,

50142 (September 24, 1997). The

Department believes that the estimated

energy savings for the considered small

motors are not "genuinely trivial," and

are, in fact, "significant."

2. Impact on Consumers

Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA requires

that energy conservation standards for

small motors be economically justified

(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)). Using the

methods and data described in section

II.B., the Department conducted an LCC

analysis to estimate the net benefits to

users from increased efficiency in the

considered small motors. The

Department then aggregated the results

from the LCC analysis to the national

level to estimate national energy savings

and national economic impacts. Given

the results on energy savings and

economic benefits, the Department

concluded that there is also likely to be

reduced emissions from decreased

electricity generation, decreased

demand for the construction of

electricity power plants, and potentially

net indirect employment benefits from

shifting expenditures from the capitalintensive utility sector to consumer

expenditures. While the Department did

not quantify these potential benefits, it

concluded that the benefits are likely to

be positive based on the results of the

Department's analyses regarding energy

conservation standards for similar

products. The Department will provide

detailed estimates of such impacts as

part of the standards rulemaking process

that will result from this determination.

III. Conclusion

A. Determination

Based on its analysis of the

information now available, the

Department has determined that energy

conservation standards for certain small

electric motors appear to be

technologically feasible and

economically justified, and are likely to

result in significant energy savings.

Consequently, the Department will

initiate the development of energyefficiency test procedures and standards

for certain small electric motors.

All design options addressed in

today's determination notice are

technologically feasible. The

Department's data, and data submitted

by manufacturers, on their own

initiative, show that the considered

technologies are available to all

manufacturers. These technologies

include increased use of higher-grade

steel, and greater amounts of electrical

steel. The machinery and tools used to

produce more-energy-efficient small

motors are generally available to

manufacturers.

The scenarios examined in the

Department's analysis show that there is

potential for significant energy savings.

The combined savings for capacitor-start

and polyphase motors range from 0.61

to 0.78 quad using DOE's data. They are

lower using the NEMA/SMMA data.

For the considered capacitor-start,

induction-run motors and using the

DOE engineering data, all of the

scenarios evaluated would result in

economic benefits to the Nation as

shown by the positive NPV. For the

same motors, using the NEMA/SMMA

data, three of the four scenarios

evaluated have positive NPV. For the

considered three-phase motors and

using the DOE engineering data, all of

the scenarios evaluated have positive

NPV for at least one design option

(national NPV was not calculated for

three-phase motors based upon the

NEMA/SMMA engineering data,

because the data provided were for an

unrepresentative size). While it is still

uncertain whether further analyses will

confirm these findings, the Department

believes that standards for considered

small motors appear economically

justified based on balanced

consideration of the information and

analysis available to the Department at

this time.

The Department has not produced

detailed estimates of the potential

adverse impacts of a national standard

on manufacturers or on individual

categories of users. The Department is

instead relying on the presence of highefficiency designs in the market place

today as an indicator of the probable

economic feasibility for manufacturers

to exclusively produce high-efficiency

designs if required by standards. During

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
38808 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 131 / Monday, July 10, 2006 / Proposed Rules

the course of the standards rulemaking

process, the Department will perform a

detailed analysis of the impact of

possible standards on manufacturers, as

well as a more disaggregated assessment

of their possible impacts on usersubgroups.

B. Future Proceedings

The Department will begin, therefore,

the process of establishing testing

requirements for small electric motors,

which it expects will result in the

publication of a proposed rule. During

the rulemaking process, the Department

will consider the Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

Standard 114-2001, Test Procedures for

Single-Phase Induction Motors.

The Department also will begin a

proceeding to consider establishment of

energy conservation standards for small

electric motors. Throughout the

rulemaking process, the Department

intends to adhere to the provisions of

the Process Rule, where applicable.

During the standards rulemaking, the

Department will review and analyze the

likely effects of industry-wide voluntary

programs, such as ENERGY STAR and

NEMA Premium©. In addition, any

efforts by NEMA and SMMA to

strengthen their efforts to promote

voluntary standards for small motors

will be considered. The Department will

collect additional information about

design options, inputs to the

engineering and LCC analyses, and

potential impacts on the manufacturers

and consumers of small motors. During

the standards rulemaking process, the

Department will evaluate whether

standards are technologically feasible

and economically justified, and are

likely to result in significant energy

savings in accordance with the

requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)) If further analyses reveal that

standards are not warranted, DOE will

revise this determination and will not

proceed to promulgate standards.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27,

2006.

Alexander A. Karsner,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. E6-10437 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 1

[Docket No.: PTO-P-2005-0024]

RIN 0651-AB95

Changes To Information Disclosure

Statement Requirements and Other

Related Matters

AGENCY: United States Patent and

Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY : The United States Patent and

Trademark Office (Office) is proposing

changes to information disclosure

statement (IDS) requirements and other

marked to the attention of Hiram H.

Bernstein. Although comments may be

submitted by mail or facsimile, the

Office prefers to receive comments via

the Internet.

Comments may also be sent by

electronic mail message over the

Internet via the Federal eRulemaking

Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking

Portal Web site (http://

www.regulations.gov) for additional

instructions on providing comments via

the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

The comments will be available for

public inspection at the Office of Patent

Legal Administration, Office of the

Deputy Commissioner for Patent

Examination Policy, currently located at

Room 7D74 of Madison West, 600

Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and

related matters to improve the quality will be available through anonymous

and efficiency of the examination file transfer protocol (ftp) via the

process. The proposed changes will Internet (address: http://

enable the examiner to focus on the www.uspto.gov). Because comments will

relevant portions of submitted be made available for public inspection,

information at the very beginning of the information that is not desired to be

examination process, give higher quality made public, such as an address or

first actions, and minimize wasted phone number, should not be included

steps. The Office is proposing the

following changes relating to

submissions of IDSs by applicants/

patent owners: Before a first Office

action on the merits, require additional

disclosure for English language

documents over twenty-five pages, for

any foreign language documents, or if

more than twenty documents are

submitted, but documents submitted in

reply to a requirement for information

or resulting from a foreign search or

examination report would not count

towards the twenty document limit;

permit the filing of an IDS after a first

Office action on the merits only if

certain additional disclosure

requirements have been met; and

eliminate the fees for submitting an IDS.

Updates to the additional disclosure

requirements would be required as

needed for every substantive

amendment. The Office is also

proposing to revise the protest rule to

better set forth options that applicants

have for dealing with unsolicited

information received from third parties.

DATES : To be ensured of consideration,

written comments must be received on

or before September 8, 2006. No public

hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES : Comments should be sent

by electronic mail over the Internet

addressed to:

AB95.comments@uspto.gov. Comments

may also be submitted by mail

addressed to: Mail Stop CommentsPatents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O.

Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450;

or by facsimile to (571) 273-7707,

in the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hiram H. Bernstein ((571) 272-7707),

Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent

Legal Administration, Office of the

Deputy Commissioner for Patent

Examination Policy; or Robert J. Spar

((571) 272-7700), Director of the Office

of Patent Legal Administration, Office of

the Deputy Commissioner for Patent

Examination Policy, directly by phone,

or by facsimile to (571) 273-7707, or by

mail addressed to: Mail Stop CommentsPatents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O.

Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Office

is proposing changes to the rules of

practice in title 37 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) to revise IDS

practice. The Office is specifically

proposing changes to §§ 1.17, 1.48, 1.55,

1.56, 1.97, 1.98, 1.99 1.291, 1.312, 1.555,

and 1.948.

The Office will post a copy of this

notice on its Internet Web site (http://

www.uspto.gov). Additionally,

individuals or organizations that need a

copy for the purpose of providing

comments, may send a request by phone

or e-mail to Terry Dey at ((571) 272-

7730 or terry.dey@uspto.gov) to receive

an e-mail copy of the notice. When

making a request for an e-mail copy, it

is requested that persons please specify

whether they wish to receive the

document in MS-Word, WordPerfect, or

HTML format.

The following definitions are

intended to facilitate an understanding

of the discussion of the proposed rules.

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards

for Small Electric Motors

Technical Support Document

Final Draft

June 2006

Building Technologies

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................1

PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

SCOPE OF MOTORS ANALYZED ....................................................................................................................... 1

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................. 1

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 OVERVIEW OF CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS .............................................................................. 4

1.3 APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS .................................................................... 5

1.4 STUDY APPROACH ................................................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER 2. GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS ................................ 7

2.1 THREE-PHASE, SQUIRREL-CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS ................................................. ............. 7

2.2 SINGLE-PHASE, SQUIRREL-CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS ............................................................. 8

2.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY: BASIC CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3. THE MARKET FOR CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS .......................................................... 11

3.1 ANNUAL SHIPMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 FEATURES OF CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS ............................................................................. 11

3.3 RANGE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCIES ................................................................................................. 14

3.4 MARKET STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................ 15

3.5 MOTOR PURCHASING ........................................................................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF

CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS ........................................................................................................................ 19

4.1 APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................ 19

4.2 EFFICIENCY AND COST IMPACTS OF DESIGN OPTIONS ............................................................ 22

CHAPTER 5. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF

SMALL MOTORS ................................................................................................................................................... 27

5.1 METHOD AND DATA .......................................................................................................................... 27

5.2 RESULTS FOR CAPACITOR-START, INDUCTION-RUN MOTOR DESIGN OPTIONS ............... 30

5.3 RESULTS FOR POLYPHASE MOTOR OPTIONS ............................................................................. 32

CHAPTER 6. POTENTIAL NATIONAL ENERGY AND CONSUMER IMPACTS OF ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR SMALL MOTORS ............................................................................... 36

6.1 METHOD ................................................................................................................................................ 36

6.2 ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL ENERGY AND CONSUMER IMPACTS .......................................... 39

APPENDIX A. INFORMATION COLLECTION PROCESS ON USE OF SMALL MOTORS .............. 44

APPENDIX B. METHOD FOR ESTIMATING CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS SHIPMENTS BY

INDUSTRY SECTOR ... ........................................................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX C. SMALL MOTORS DISCOUNT-RATE CALCULATIONS ............................................... 48

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Total Domestic Shipments of Fractional Horsepower Motors in 1999 .................. 5

Figure 3.1 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors - Shipments in 2000 .............................. 12

Figure 3.2 Small Polyphase Motors - Shipments in 2000 ..................................................... 13

Figure 3.3

Figure 4.1

Listed Efficiency (full load) of Small Motor Models ...........................................

Increase in Efficiency and Cost from Steel-grade Change, Capacitor- Start, %2

14

horsepower, NEMA/SMMA data* ............................................................................................... 22

Figure 5.1 Capacitor-start %2 horsepower -- DOE Data .......................................................... 31

Figure 5.2 Capacitor-start '/2 horsepower -- NEMA/SMMA data ..............................

Figure 5.3 Polyphase One horsepower -- DOE Data ............................................................. 33

Figure 5.4 Polyphase %2 horsepower -- NEMA/SMMA data ................................................. 34

Figure 6.1 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, DOE Analysis..

39

Figure 6.2 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, NEMA/SMMA

data ............................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 6.3 Polyphase Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, DOE Analysis ...... 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Major Applications for Considered Small Motors ...................................................... 6

Table 3.1 Leading Manufacturers of Considered Small Motors Sold in the U.S ..................... 15

Table 3.2 Average Use Characteristics for General Purpose Small Motors by Type of

Application ................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 3.3 Estimated Annual Shipments of General Purpose Small Motors by Type of

Application ................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 3.4 Motor Purchases........................................................................................................ 17

Table 4.1 Electrical Steel Options Considered .................................. 20 ......................... ..............

Table 4.2 Capacitor-start DOE #4K, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP ........................................... 22

Table 4.3 Capacitor-start DOE #6K, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP ........................................... 23

Table 4.4 Capacitor-start NEMA, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP ............................................... 23

Table 4.5 Capacitor-start DOE #4K, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP ........................................... 23

Table 4.6 Capacitor-start DOE #6K, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP ........................................... 23

Table 4.7 Capacitor-start NEMA, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP ............................................... 24

Table 4.8 Polyphase DOE #3N, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP .................................................. 24

Table 4.9 Polyphase DOE #2N, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP .................................................. 24

Table 4.10 Polyphase NEMA, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP .................................................. 24

Table 4.11 Polyphase DOE #3N, One horsepower , 4-pole, ODP .......................................... 25

Table 4.12 Polyphase DOE #3N, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP .............................................. 25

Table 4.13 Polyphase DOE #2N, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP .............................................. 25

Table 4.14 Polyphase NEMA, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP .................................................. 26

Table 4.15 Polyphase DOE #3N, One horsepower , 4-pole, ODP .......................................... 26

Table 5.1 Calculated Average Purchase Prices for Prototype Motors ...................................... 27

Table 5.2 Electricity Prices ....................................................................................................... 29

Table 5.3 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User , Capacitor-Start, %2

horsepower, DOE Data* ............................................................................................................... 30

ii

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 5.4 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Capacitor-Start, 1/2

horsepower, NEMA/SMMA data ................................................................................................. 31

Table 5.5 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase One

horsepower, DOE Data* ............................................................................................................... 33

Table 5.6 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase 1/2 horsepower,

NEMA/SMMA data ...................................................................................................................... 34

Table 6.1 Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency Improvement for

Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors Projected to be Sold in the 2010-2030 Period* ............. 41

Table 6.2 Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency Improvement for

Polyphase Motors Projected to be Sold in the 2010-2030 Period* .............................................. 42

Table C.1 Cost of Capital Factors .............................................................................................. 49

Table C.2 Real Discount Rates by Small Motors Ownership Category ..................................... 50

iii

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AC alternating current

Btu British thermal unit

Btu/h British thermal units per hour

CAPM Capital Asset Pricing Model

CSCR capacitor-start, capacitor-run

CSIR capacitor-start, induction-run

DC direct current

DOE Department of Energy

EIA Energy Information Administration

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act

ERP equity risk premium

GDP gross domestic product

hertz Hz

hp horsepower

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

Hz hertz

IZR the expression of heat loss in watts where I is measured current and R is resistance

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

LCC life-cycle cost

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association

iv

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
NPV net present value

ODP open drip-proof

OEM original equipment manufacturer

PSC permanent-split capacitor

PU per unit

Quad (one) quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (Btu) or 293.1 billion kilowatt hours

rpm revolutions per minute

rps revolutions per second

SMMA Small Motors and Motion Association

V

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

Section 346(b)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1))

requires the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) to determine whether energy

conservation standards for certain small electric motors would be technologically feasible and

economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. To have a basis for a

determination, the Department performed the analysis described in this document.

SCOPE OF MOTORS ANALYZED

Under section 340(13)(F) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311( 13)(F), the term "small electric motor"

means a National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) general-purpose, alternatingcurrent, single-speed, induction motor, built in a two -digit frame-number series in accordance

with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, "Motors and Generators." The two-digit frame

series encompasses NEMA frame sizes 42, 48, and 56 . The horsepower ratings for the two-digit

frame series range from 1/4 to three horsepower. These motors operate at 60 Hertz and have

either a single-phase or a three-phase (polyphase) electrical design. Section 346 (b)(3) of EPCA,

42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(3), also states that a standard prescribed for small electric motors shall not

apply to any small electric motor that is a component of a covered product under section 332(a)

of EPCA or covered equipment under section 340.

Among single-phase, two-digit frame motors, only capacitor-start motors-including both

capacitor-start, induction-run (CSIR) and capacitor-start, capacitor-run (CSCR) motors-can

meet the torque requirements for NEMA general-purpose motors. Among three-phase, small

motors, servo motors do not meet the NEMA performance requirements for general-purpose

motors. Hence, the analysis covers only non-servo three phase small motors. Market research

indicates that the annual commercial sales volume of CSIR, CSCR, and polyphase small motors

meeting the EPCA definition is approximately four million units for capacitor-start (with 95%

CSIR and 5% CSCR) and one million units for polyphase designs. These motors are used in a

wide variety of commercial and industrial applications, with the largest being pumping

equipment and commercial/industrial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment rated

over 240,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h).

METHODOLOGY

The analysis consists of five major elements: (1) market research that defines the commercial

and industrial applications of small motors; (2) engineering analysis that estimates the

relationship between efficiency and cost; (3) life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis which estimates the

costs and benefits to users from increased efficiency in small motors; (4) national energy savings

analysis that determines the potential energy savings on a national scale; and (5) national

consumer impacts analysis that estimates potential direct economic costs and benefits that may

result from small motor energy conservation standards. The Department conducted actual

independent testing of a sample of motors to provide input data for these analyses. In conducting

the engineering and LCC analyses, DOE used two sets of data. It obtained the first set from the

motor testing and design costing conducted by an independent motor industry expert. The

1

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Department obtained the second set of engineering input data from consultations with a working

group comprised of major small motor manufacturers.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Energy-efficiency-enhancing design options that DOE considered have the energy savings

potentials described below. The Department presents a range of national economic impacts for

the considered small motors. The Department presents a range of results because it obtained cost

and efficiency information through two sets of engineering data, as described above. Moreover,

the Department considered four scenarios based on different assumptions about shipment growth

and base case efficiency trends.

Capacitor-start, induction-run motors

The analysis based on DOE's motor testing and costing shows potential cumulative energy

savings from motor efficiency improvement ranging from 0.47 to 0.59 quadrillion Btu (quad) of

energy over the period 2010 to 2040 for motors sold between 2010 and 2030. The corresponding

cumulative economic benefit for consumers, expressed in terms of net present value (NPV) of

benefits, ranges from $0.28 billion to $0.35 billion.

Analysis based on average data from the NEMA/ Small Motors and Motion Association

(SMMA) working group indicates lower potential energy savings and economic benefits. The

highest savings scenario, which in this case refers to the stack-change design option, shows

energy savings of 0.21 quad with an NPV of $0.04 billion. In the scenario with least savings, the

all design-options have negative NPV.

Polyphase motors

The analysis based on DOE's motor testing and costing shows cumulative energy savings from

steel-grade changes ranging from a low of 0.14 quad to a high of 0.19 quad over the period 2010

to 2040 for motors sold between 2010 and 2030. The corresponding cumulative NPV range is

from $0.08 billion to $0.11 billion.

For polyphase motors, DOE did not estimate national impacts using the NEMA/SMMA data

because the manufacturers' analysis was based on a 1/2 horsepower motor that is not

representative of the size of motors in this product class which are more typically one

horsepower in size.

2

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Under 346(b)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1), the

Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is required to determine whether energy

conservation standards for certain small electric motors would be technologically feasible and

economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. The purpose of this draft

analysis is to provide a basis on which the Department can make its determination.

Under section 340(13)(F) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F), the term "small electric motor"

means a National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) general-purpose, alternatingcurrent, single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame-number series in accordance

with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, "Motors and Generators." The two-digit frame

series encompasses NEMA frame series 42, 48, and 56. The horsepower ratings for the two-digit

frame series range from 1/4 to three horsepower. These motors operate at 60 Hertz and have

either a single-phase or a three-phase (also known as "polyphase") electrical design.

Typical applications for such small electric motors include pumps, fans and blowers,

woodworking machinery, conveyors, air compressors, commercial laundry equipment, service

industry machines, food processing machines, farm machinery, machine tools, packaging

machinery, and major residential and commercial equipment.

EPCA section 346(b)(3) states that any energy conservation standard prescribed under

subsection (b)(2) "shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a component of a covered

product under section 322(a) or a covered equipment under section 340." Such covered products

and equipment that contain small electric motors include residential air conditioners and heat

pumps, furnaces, refrigerators and freezers, clothes washers and dryers, and dishwashers; and

commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners

and heat pumps, and warm-air furnaces. EPACT 2005 increased the number of products covered

under EPCA. In response the Department adjusted its estimates and forecasts of the shipments

of considered small motors to exclude those motors that are a component of these newly covered

products. Newly covered products include commercial/industrial heating, ventilating, and airconditioning equipment rated from 240,000 to 760,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h),

and commercial clothes washers.

As a result of the above definitions and exclusions, small electric motors covered by EPCA

section 346(b)(1) only comprise about four percent of the total shipments of small electric

motors. Nevertheless, these motors, which the Department identifies here as "considered small

motors," account for a major portion of the energy consumed by the total population of small

motors because of their size and use.

3

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
1.2 OVERVIEW OF CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

As described above, the motors considered in this report are a subset of the total population of

small electric motors. Further, the term "general purpose" in the EPCA definitiona of a small

motor is tied to the NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 performance requirements that

NEMA established for general purpose motors, such as the minimum levels for breakdown and

locked-rotor torque for small electric motors presented in MG1-1987 paragraph 12.32.

Among considered, single-phase, two-digit motors, those motors with shaded-pole, permanentsplit capacitor designs, and those with split-phase designs do not meet the torque requirements of

NEMA general-purpose motors. Capacitor-start motors, including both capacitor-start,

induction-run (CSIR) and capacitor-start, capacitor-run (CSCR) motors, can provide the torque

requirements for NEMA general purpose motors. Other single-phase motors, such as universal,

drip-proof, and series alternating current (AC) motors, are designed for definite or specialpurpose applications.

The CSCR motor is not interchangeable with the CSIR motor in most cases, because of

differences in size and starting torque. The addition of a second running capacitor to the motor

changes the dimensional envelope of the motor but not the frame size. In this analysis, the

Department considers the CSIR and CSCR motors as separate product classes, but analyzes in

detail only CSIR motors since they represent 95% of sales of capacitor start motors. Although

CSIR and CSCR are not interchangeable for all applications, there may be some applications for

which the CSCR offers a higher-efficiency alternative to a CSIR motor.

Among polyphase, small motors, synchronous-stepper motors cannot provide the torque

requirements of NEMA general-purpose motors, while polyphase servo motors are for definite

purpose applications. Polyphase non-servo motors do meet the NEMA requirements for general

purpose motors.

For the purposes of this analysis, the considered small electric motors that meet the EPCA

definition fall into three product classes:

o Single-phase, capacitor-start, induction-run motors

• Single-phase, capacitor-start, capacitor-run motors

o Polyphase (non-servo) motors

a EPCA does not define the term "general purpose motor," although it does define the terms "definite purpose

motor" and "special purpose motor." According to EPCA, "definite purpose motor" means "any motor designed in

standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical construction for use under service

conditions other than usual or for use on a particular type of application and which cannot be used in most general

purpose applications." (42 U.S.C. 6311 (13)(B)). Likewise, "special purpose motor" means "any motor, other than a

general purpose motor or definite purpose motor, which has special operating characteristics or special mechanical

construction, or both, designed for a particular application." (42 U.S.C. 6311 (13)(C)). Consequently, the

Department must derive the term "general purpose" by eliminating those definite and special purpose motors, and

subsequently must define the term within the context of NEMA performance characteristics that can operate

successfully in many different applications.

4

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
These classes accounted for close to four percent of total domestic shipments (capacitor start -

three percent and other polyphase - one percent) of all fractional horsepower motors in 1999

(Figure 1.1). This is because the largest categories of small motors do not fit the starting torque

requirements for "general purpose" motors as defined by NEMA Standards Publication MG1-

1987.

Source: US Census Bureau, C :ri-e.zr Iiid trim Reports, Motors and Generators - . 335H

Figure 1.1 Total Domestic Shipments of Fractional Horsepower Motors in 1999

Not all capacitor-start and polyphase non-servo motors are NEMA general-purpose motors.

Those in the "definite-purpose" category include many motors used for fans and blowers and

specific types of pumps.

1.3 APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

The applications for the considered small motors are listed below:

5

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 1.1 Major Applications for Considered Small Motors

Pumps and pumping equipment

Commercial and industrial HVAC / refrigeration equipment

Farm machinery

Conveyors

Industrial and commercial fans and blowers

Machine tools

Textile machinery

Woodworking machinery

Food products machinery

Air and gas compressors

Packaging machinery

General industrial machinery

Commercial laundry machinery

Service industry machinery

Many motors used in pumps and pumping equipment and industrial and commercial fans and

blowers are definite -purpose motors, but a significant number of general-purpose motors are also

used. In commercial and industrial heating, ventilating , and air-conditioning (HVAC)

equipment, the HVAC equipment that is covered under other EPCA requirements (section 340)

is rated at less than 760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).

1.4 STUDY APPROACH

The Department's analyses consisted of five major components:

• Market research to better understand usage patterns of considered motors;

• Engineering analysis to estimate the impact on efficiency and cost of feasible design

options;

• Life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis to estimate the benefits and costs of efficiency

improvement for end-users of small motors;

• National energy savings analysis to estimate the potential national energy savings from

efficiency improvement of considered motors; and

• National consumer impacts analysis to estimate the potential direct economic costs and

benefits resulting from efficiency improvement of considered motors.

In the chapters that follow, this report first discusses the general characteristics of small motors

in Chapter 2, and then discusses the market research, engineering analysis, and LCC analysis in

Chapters 3 through 5 respectively . Chapter 6 discusses both the national energy saving and

national consumer economic impacts. Lastly , Chapter 7 provides the summary and concluding

commentary of this report.

6

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

2.1 THREE-PHASE, SQUIRREL-CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS

Three-phase, squirrel-cage induction motors are the prime movers for the majority of

commercial and industrial sector mechanical applications requiring more than a few horsepower,

and in many smaller applications as well. The typical three-phase induction motor employs a

wound stator and a "squirrel cage" rotor. Magnetic force acting between the stator and rotor

units produces motor torque. The stator consists of a hollow cylindrical core formed by a stack

of thin steel laminations. Insulated copper windings are assembled into slots formed around the

inner circumference of the core. The stator winding carries current through one slot and then

back though a companion slot located approximately one pole pitch distant from the first. For a

two-pole motor, the pole pitch is half the circle, while for four- or six-pole machines it is onequarter or one-sixth of the circle, respectively.

The rotor unit consists of a laminated steel core press fitted to the steel shaft. Like the stator, the

rotor core also has windings set into slots, but these are deployed around its outer circumference.

Moreover, in the squirrel-cage rotor configuration, the rotor windings consist of solid conductor

bars that are interconnected at either end with solid-conductor end rings. Absent the laminated

steel core, this assembly of bars and end rings would look like a "squirrel cage"; hence the

nomenclature for this very sturdy and cost-effective construction.

When the stator windings are energized by a three-phase electrical source, a radially directed

magnetic flux is established in the "air gap" between the rotor and the stator. This flux rotates at

a speed determined by the electrical frequency and number of poles given by the stator-winding

configuration. For example, with 60-hertz (Hz) excitation and a two-pole (or one-pole-pair)

winding, the flux rotates at a so-called "synchronous" speed of 60 revolutions per second (rps) or

3,600 revolutions per minute (rpm). When an application exerts a torque on the motor, a

difference arises between the synchronous speed and the actual speed of the motor which is

termed "slip." Thus the fully loaded speed is slightly less than the synchronous motor speed.

The flux produced by the energized stator windings envelops the rotor cage bars and, due to its

motion, induces current to flow in these conductors. The interaction of the rotating stator flux

and the rotor bar currents develops motor-drive torque.

Important characteristics of the three-phase squirrel cage induction motor are simplicity,

ruggedness, inherently high starting torque (without the start-assisting devices required for

single-phase motors), and the potential to achieve high efficiency. Compared with larger motors,

the efficiency of small (one horsepower and below), three-phase induction motors declines

rapidly as the load drops below 70 percent of rated load.

Polyphase motors in a two-digit NEMA frame size range from 1/4 horsepower to three

horsepower, although the majority are one horsepower or less. They are available in two-, four-,

or six-pole configurations (corresponding to speeds of 3500, 1750, or 1150 rpm, respectively). A

four-pole configuration is the most common.

7

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
2.2 SINGLE-PHASE, SQUIRREL-CAGE INDUCTION MOTORS

The basic principal of operation of a single-phase, squirrel-cage, induction motor is similar to a

three-phase induction motor. A rotating magnetic field is easily established with three-phase

excitation of motor windings, as described in the preceding subsection. In a single-phase

induction motor, two counter-rotating fields are produced which develop equal and opposite

rotor torque components when the motor is at standstill. However, if means are provided to urge

rotation in one direction or the other, net torque will be developed to sustain the rotation and

drive the attached load. While the electromagnetic torque acting on the rotor of a three-phase

motor is relatively smooth and free from pulsating disturbances, this is not the case in the singlephase motor. In this instance, the torque may pulsate from zero to a maximum value at twice the

power-line frequency-e.g., 120 Hz. In most applications, this is of little consequence, as the

inertia of the motor and the driven load act to smooth out the torque pulsations.

The basic construction of the single-phase induction motor includes a rotor and stator; each

contains a stack of electromagnetic grade steel laminations, as previously described for the threephase motor. The "squirrel cage" rotor has a series of aluminum bars cast lengthwise into the

rotor laminations. These bars are connected with rings located at each end of the stack. The

stator laminations contain a series of slots for the windings that are aluminum or copper wire.

Two sets of windings are provided, at a 90°-phase difference. The "main" or "run" winding

operates directly from line current, and stays energized as long as the motor is running.

Single-phase motors are categorized according to the way the "start and run," "secondary," or

"auxiliary" winding is used for starting the motor and then running it at normal speed. Widely

used single-phase motor categories are:

• The split-phase motor -- This configuration is the least costly. The start winding has a

higher resistance-to-reactance ratio than the main winding, which is achieved by using a

relatively small diameter wire. This reduces both the amount and the cost of the copper in

the start winding and the space taken up in the stator slots by this winding.

• The CSIR motor -- This configuration is a comparatively low-efficiency motor that

provides higher starting torque than the split-phase motor.

• The permanent-split capacitor (PSC) motor -- This configuration has a high potential

efficiency depending on the design.

• The CSCR motor -- This has an efficient run configuration, with a large capacitance at

start-up providing a large starting torque. The start capacitance is typically three to five

times the size of the run capacitor, but can be packaged compactly, because continuous

operation (and the resulting heat dissipation) is not a consideration.

Split-phase and CSIR motors use the secondary winding for starting only; the capacitor-start

version provides higher starting torque. The secondary winding uses a much smaller diameter

wire energized for a limited time without overheating and automatically disconnected after startup by a centrifugal switch. In PSC and CSCR motors, the secondary winding continues

8

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
operating when the motor is running. The capacitor in series with this winding shifts the phase

of the input voltage approximately 90°, so the two windings together create a rotating magnetic

field. The benefits achieved by PSC and CSCR motors are the suppression of torque pulsations

and the improved use of both the windings and the iron in the motor. These benefits increase the

efficiency and the power factor of the motor, but at an added cost associated with the capacitor.

Single-phase motors in a two-digit NEMA frame size range from 1/4 horsepower to one

horsepower and are available in two-, four-, or six-pole configurations. A four-pole

configuration is the most common.

2.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY: BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

The application of a motor to do work creates energy losses that are both external and internal to

the motor. Losses that are external to the motor are influenced by the power factor of the motor.

The power factor is the ratio of real power to apparent power, and ranges from zero to one. The

real power (measured in watts) is used to create the useful work (and waste heat) of the motor.

Reactive power (measured in volt-amps reactive) is used to create the magnetic field needed for

the motor to operate, but it does not contribute to the mechanical power generated by the motor.

Internal energy losses are usually categorized as conductive, magnetic, mechanical, and stray.

All of these energy losses appear as heat in the motor. Losses are strongly dependent on design

and quality control of motor components.

The conventional methods for reducing losses include increasing the amount of active material

(e.g., the diameter of wire conductors); substituting a higher grade of steel for the magnetic

components; improving the mechanical components and design (winding, bearings, and fan); and

improving the quality control of components and assembly. These methods may increase either

the motor cost or size if no other changes in the motor are made.

The precise impacts on motor cost and efficiency will depend on how the designer makes

tradeoffs between added performance from improved materials or design, and maintenance of

the motor performance. A designer cannot ignore interaction among different motor losses in the

process of optimizing. The I2R (the expression of heat loss in watts where I is measured current

and R is resistance) of the rotor is a key loss, as are windage, friction, and stray losses. Options

that may reduce the stray loss can increase the core loss, while those that can reduce the windage

loss may increase the I2R loss.

Often a measure that enhances efficiency improves motor performance such that other costsaving changes can be made to offset the cost of the efficiency improvement. An example of this

is the use of more-expensive, high-permeability steel in place of iron. This leads to higher

efficiency, smaller motor size, and improved torque, and also allows the volume of copper used

in the motor to be reduced while maintaining performance.

Various component additions to a single-phase motor are known to improve the efficiency while

increasing the cost and usually changing the motor's dimensions. Adding an auxiliary winding

9

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
with a capacitor, adding an auxiliary winding with a starting capacitor and switch, or adding an

auxiliary winding with starting capacitor, switch, and running capacitor to a single-phase motor

can reduce energy losses, increase torque, and improve the power factor. The additional winding

may be continuously energized as in the CSCR motor, or disconnected with a centrifugal switch

as is often done in the CSIR motor. The CSCR motor has a switch added in series with the

starting capacitor and adds a second running capacitor in parallel to the starting capacitor that is

not switched out of the circuit after starting. The auxiliary winding and running capacitor of the

CSCR motor contribute to motor output, allowing it to approach the efficiency of a polyphase

motor.

10

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
CHAPTER 3. THE MARKET FOR CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

For its determination analysis, the Department examined five aspects of the market structure of

considered small motors. The first key piece of information for the Department's analysis is the

size of the market including estimates of current shipments and estimates of long term shipment

trends. Second, the Department examined the relative market shares of different small motors

with different characteristics and features. Third, the Department reviewed the range of existing

motor efficiencies in the market. Fourth, the Department investigated the market structure in

terms of how considered electric motors are distributed and the proportion of motors used in

different applications. And fifth, the Department examined how motor prices are affected by the

distribution channel employed.

3.1 ANNUAL SHIPMENTS

The historic trend in annual shipments of considered small motors is uncertain. Data from the

U.S. Census Bureaua show little growth in the 1990s, but these data only include motors

produced in the U.S.'

NEMA provided confidential data on two-digit-frame-size, fractional-horsepower motor sales to

domestic customers by NEMA manufacturers, covering the period from 1971 to 2001. These

data, after interpolation, show an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. The three-phase and

capacitor-start motors DOE is analyzing make up only around 20 percent of the motors covered

by these data.

A joint NEMA/SMMA survey in 2000 estimated U.S. sales of CSIR and polyphase motors at 5.4

and 1.3 million, respectively. CSIR motors accounted for approximately 95 percent of total

shipments of capacitor-start motors.

3.2 FEATURES OF CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the year-2000 market shares of considered small motors with different

basic features (according to the NEMA/SMMA survey). Open motors account for 93 percent of

total CSIR shipments. The most important size categories (with roughly equal shares) are 1/3,

1/2, and 3/4 horsepower. The average size is 1/2 horsepower. Four-pole motors account for a

somewhat higher share than two- and six-pole motors.b

For polyphase motors, enclosed motors account for two-thirds of total shipments, reflecting the

greater use of such motors in industrial environments. The largest sales categories are 3/4 and

one horsepower. The average size is one horsepower. Four-pole motors account for two-thirds

of the total.

a The Department has included all single-phase motors, one horsepower and over, with capacitor-start motors.

b The shares of two- and six-pole motors are estimated values, as complete data were lacking.

11

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
N"du i 1:Er of P.ugs

Figure 3.1 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors - Shipments in 2000

12

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Hci- eJ + til; sire.-

Figure 3.2 Small Polyphase Motors - Shipments in 2000

13

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
3.3 RANGE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCIES

The Department collected data from manufacturers' catalogs on the listed nominal, full-load

efficiency and other features of more than 700 different models.2 While these data provide an

approximate picture of the spread of efficiencies on the market, two caveats are necessary. First,

the reported efficiencies are not precisely comparable among different manufacturers, since they

are not all based on the same test procedure. Second, many of the models likely have a low sales

volume; thus, the spread of available model data does not portray any information about relative

shipments of models.

Figure 3.3 shows the full-load efficiency versus the nominal horsepower of a sample of

capacitor-start and three-phase motors available in the market in the year 2000. Generally

speaking, larger motors have a higher efficiency than smaller motors in a given class. For open,

four-pole, capacitor-start motors, the efficiency range is greater for 3/4 horsepower motors than

for 1/3 and 1/2 horsepower motors. Some of the highest-efficiency motors larger than one

horsepower are CSCR motors. For three-phase motors, there is also a significant range in

efficiency.

The range of efficiencies for a given type and size is likely due in part to different methods of

testing among the manufacturers, as well as differences in specific features.

`::np, ac i : r ' 'tai-t AIotnz~: Open. 4 FnI

l l it, tote ,: Fn1o .=±3, 4 Pole

7E

2

Source: A.D. Little (2001)

Figure 3.3 Listed Efficiency (full load) of Small Motor Models

14

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
3.4 MARKET STRUCTURE

The Department estimates the distribution channels for considered small motors as follows:

1. Motor manufacturers ? original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) 40 percent

2. Motor manufacturers ? distributors ? OEMs 25 percent

3. Motor manufacturers ? distributors ? end users 35 percent

The motors in the last category are motors sold to end users as replacements or spares.

A high percentage of considered small motors sold in the U.S. are domestically manufactured.

In addition to imported stand-alone motors, some considered small motors are imported as

components of equipment built in other countries. The magnitude of such imports is difficult to

determine.

Table 3.1 lists the manufacturers that produce most of the considered small motors sold in the

U.S.

Table 3.1 Leading Manufacturers of Considered Small Motors Sold in the U.S.

Manufacturer Brand

A.O. Smith A.O. Smith, MagneTek,

Baldor Electric Baldor Electric Co.

Emerson Motors Emerson, U.S. Motors

General Electric GE Motors

Regal-Beloit Lincoln Motors, Marathon Electric

Rockwell Automation Reliance Electric

TECO Electric and Machinery Co. Ltd. TECO, TECO-Westinghouse Motor Company

Toshiba International Corporation Toshiba International Corporation

WEG Electric Motor Corp. WEG

There are dozens of OEMs that incorporate considered small motors in industrial, agricultural,

and commercial equipment. These range in size from large to small companies.

The users of equipment containing considered small motors primarily consist of firms that have

the applications listed in Table 3.2. The large diversity of applications poses challenges with

respect to accurately characterizing typical motor usage patterns. To determine how considered

small motors are used, the Department reviewed trade literature and conducted interviews with

manufacturers that produce the equipment into which small motors are incorporated.3 See

Appendix A for a more detailed description of how the Department gathered its information for

this product.

15

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
The estimated typical annual hours of use range from 800 hours for air and gas compressors to

5000 hours for industrial/commercial fans and blowers. Many of the values are in the 2000-

3000 range.

Table 3.2 Average Use Characteristics for General Purpose Small Motors by Type of

Application

Application Hours/year Motor loading

(% of rated)

Farm machinery 1000 70%

Conveyors 3000 50%

Machine tools 2000 60%

Textile machinery 3000 70%

Woodworking machinery 2000 35%

Food machinery 3000 60%

Pumps and pumping equipment 3000 65%

Air and gas compressors 800 85%

Industrial and commercial fans and blowers 5000 80%

Packaging machinery 3000 60%

General industrial machinery 2000 n/a

Commercial laundry machinery 2000 60%

Commercial and Industrial HVAC/refrigeration equipment 2500 60%

Service industry machinery 1500 n/a

Source: Easton Consultants (2001)

The Department also investigated typical motor-loading practices. The motor loading is

commonly in the 60-70 percent range, although it is higher in two cases, air and gas compressors

and industrial/commercial fans and blowers, and lower in two cases, conveyors and

woodworking machinery.

To assess the relative importance of different application categories, the Department estimated

the magnitude of annual shipments of considered small motors to each group , shown in Table 3.3

(see Appendix B for more discussion of its method). Motors used in pumps and pumping

equipment and in commercial and industrial HVAC/refrigeration equipment each account for

approximately 30 percent of the total shipments for capacitor-start motors. No other category

accounts for more than 10 percent. Motors used in pumps and pumping equipment are the

largest category for polyphase motors, followed by commercial and industrial

HVAC/refrigeration equipment and conveyors.

16

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 3.3 Estimated Annual Shipments of General Purpose Small Motors by Type of

A li ti

Cap. Start Polyphase

pp ca on

`000 % `000 %

Farm machinery 457 10.9 33 3.0

Conveyors 497 11.8 207 18.8

Machine tools 81 1.9 81 7.3

Textile machinery 18 0.4 13 1.2

Woodworking machinery 101 2.4 34 3.1

Food machinery 90 2.1 90 8.2

Pumps and pumping equipment 1723 41.1 364 33.0

Air and gas compressors 338 8.1 101 9.2

Industrial and commercial fans and blowers 248 5.9 62 5.6

Packaging machinery 12 0.3 11 1.0

General industrial machinery 101 2.4 38 3.4

Commercial laundry machinery 52 1.2 4.5 0.4

Commercial and Industrial HVAC/refrigeration equipment 354 8.4 47.8 4.3

Service industry machinery 125 3.0 16 1.5

TOTAL 4197 100 1102 100

Source: Easton Consultants (2001), adjusted by DOE in 2006 to account for motors in newly covered products.

3.5 MOTOR PURCHASING

An end-user will almost always replace a worn-out motor with the same model, which means

that the motor purchase decision is effectively made by the OEMs, and not by the end-users who

use the motors and pay for the electricity to operate them. The price paid for a motor depends on

the type of purchaser and the volume purchased. The Department's research indicates typical

ranges as follows:

Table 3.4

Application

Motor Purchases

Channel Purchase price (% of list)

Motor Manufacturers ? OEMs 37-40

Motor Mfrs ? Distributors ? OEMs 46-48

Motor Mfrs ? Distributors ? End Users 65-75

In its interviews with OEMs, the Department inquired about their attitudes toward motor energy

efficiency. A summary of the views of the OEM representatives follows:

17

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
1. Efficiency is not a high priority in selection of motors for most of the equipment studied.

The OEMs stated that they have not given much attention to motor efficiency in this size

range primarily because their customers do not request more-efficient motors, and are

more concerned with first cost than with small reductions in operating cost.

2. The OEMs stated that there was more interest in energy efficiency in select industrial

categories-conveyors, food products machinery, industrial pumps, and packaging

equipment-than others. They indicated that their customers expressed more interest in

energy efficiency where hours of operation are longer and the end-user customer is a

more sophisticated, cost-sensitive operator. These categories in total represented about

40 percent of two-digit motors. (The response from the HVAC category was mixed, with

some OEMs quite interested in greater efficiency, and others not.)

3. Several OEMs interviewed expressed interest in total-motor -system efficiency,

particularly adjustable-speed drives. There is wide recognition that energy can be saved

with the installation of adjustable -speed drives and other devices to control motor

systems, particularly in HVAC fans and industrial pumps.

Many of the product designers noted that there are few premium-efficient, two-digit motors

available. They stated that, even if an OEM wanted to use a more efficient motor, it would be

difficult because motor manufacturers offer very few premium-efficient motors in these frame

sizes. In the case of several manufacturers of single-phase motors, the CSCR motors are

designated "premium efficient" in contrast to CSIR motors. However, the former are not always

physically interchangeable with a CSIR motor.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Industrial Reports, Motors and Generators - MA335H.

2. Arthur D. Little, 2001. Small motor database (prepared for this study).

3. Easton Consultants, 2001. Analysis of considered motors use by principal machinery

categories (prepared for this study).

18

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
CHAPTER 4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE

EFFICIENCY OF CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

The engineering analysis provides the relationship between motor cost and efficiency that the

Department used as a key input to its analysis of economic justification . The Department

employed two methods for obtaining this cost-efficiency data. The first method was to retain an

independent expert to estimate the cost of modifying baseline motors that are currently available

in the market to versions that have higher efficiency designs. The second method was to share

the preliminary cost-efficiency analysis with manufacturers and to solicit similar, aggregate costefficiency data from a committee of manufacturer representatives. The two cost-efficiency data

collections provide significantly different sets of cost-efficiency data.

Because of the small number of shipments for the CSCR motors relative to CSIR motors, the

Department analyzed only CSIR designs in its engineering analysis and refers to the two product

classes collectively as "capacitor-start" motors.

4.1 APPROACH

The Department used a design-option approach to estimate cost -efficiency curves for considered

small motors. In this approach, the Department selects a baseline design that is then modified by

different design options that increase motor efficiency . The design options are sorted from least

expensive to most expensive, and the sorted list of designs and corresponding production costs

provide a cost-efficiency relationship . The Department used an independent expert to estimate

one set of cost-efficiency data, and solicited another set of cost-efficiency data from a committee

of motor manufacturers.

The Department began its design option selection by first considering which types of design

changes would provide the most practical and cost-effective efficiency improvements . The most

practical ways to adjust motor performance to achieve increased efficiency for the considered

small motors are: (1) change the grade of electrical steel ; (2) change the stack length ; and (3)

change the flux density by adjusting the effective turns or changing the thickness of the steel.

The Department estimated the first two design options to be the most cost-effective for

increasing motor efficiency, and therefore examined only the first two design-option types in this

determination analysis. The justification for this approach is that if the analysis on a subset of

the design options shows that energy efficiency can be increased cost-effectively, then an

analysis on the complete set of design options would result in the same conclusion.

As shown in Table 4.1, the characteristics of the steel for the steel -grade-improvement design

options covered approximately the same range of steel -grade characteristics for the DOE analysis

and the manufacturers' analysis. Both analyses included both cold-rolled and semi-processed

electrical steel. The DOE analysis examined steel thicknesses ranging from 0.031 inch to 0.019

inch, while the manufacturers' analysis examined a steel thickness range from 0.031 inch to

0.018 inch.

19

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
For the stack-length change design options, the Department considered incremental increases of

0.25 inch in stack length in its sample motors. The Department's independent expert used motor

design software combined with sample motor test data to estimate the impacts of the stack length

changes on stator and rotor I2R losses, steel losses, friction and windage losses, and stray losses

to estimate the efficiencies of the longer stack-length motors.

The Department presented its preliminary results regarding the efficiency improvements that

would result from steel-grade and stack-length changes before the manufacturers provided their

cost-efficiency estimates.

Table 4.1 Electrical Steel Options Considered

Grade Type

Maximum Loss

(watts/lb

@15kg, 60 hz)

Thickness

(inch)

DOE Analysis

Grade A Cold rolled 4.51 0.031

Grade B Cold rolled 4.15 0.031

Grade A+ Cold rolled 4.04 0.025

Grade B+ Cold rolled 2.78 0.022

M47 Semi-processed electrical* 1.53 0.019

Manufacturers' Analysis

Grade 1 Cold rolled 0.026-0.031

Grade 2 Cold rolled 0.022-0.025

Grade 3 Semi-processed electrical* 0.018-0.022

* Semi-processed steel with full anneal after punching

4.1.1 The Department's Cost-Efficiency Analysis

The Department developed cost-efficiency data by retaining an independent expert to test a set of

baseline or prototype motors, and then analyzed the impact on cost and efficiency of steel-grade

changes and stack-length changes to these baseline designs.

The Department used two prototype motors each for its capacitor -start motor analysis and its

polyphase motor analysis. For the capacitor start analysis, the Department's expert selected

Dayton motors with model numbers 4K856 and 6K965 as the prototype designs and assigned the

results corresponding to these two baseline motors as "DOE #4K" and "DOE #6K." These two

motors have NEMA frame sizes 56 and 48, respectively, and so have different cost-efficiency

characteristics.

20

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
For polyphase motors, the Department's expert used two I/2-horsepower Dayton motors and one

one-horsepower motor with model numbers 3N641 , 2N103, and 3N102. The Department refers

to the data derived from these three baseline motors as "polyphase DOE #3N, 1/2 horsepower,"

"polyphase DOE #2N, %2 horsepower," and "polyphase DOE #3N, 1 horsepower," respectively.

The Department's analysis of the cost impacts of efficiency improvements only considered the

increased cost of improved electrical steel, copper winding, and aluminum rotor bar/end ring.

The Department calculated these material costs based on typical costs when purchased in

volume. No other materials are normally affected by the design changes considered. The

Department did not consider labor and burden because these cost components are small and are

not expected to vary substantially with higher efficiency. It also did not consider the impact on

set-up time and the introduction of new part numbers , because such costs are uncertain and are

also likely to be small.

In each case, DOE gave the baseline motor a "per-unit " (PU) cost of one. All changes to the

motor cost are related to the PU cost of one. For example, if a change in electrical steel

represented a 10-percent change in the total motor cost , the PU number would be 1.10 for the

new design.

4.1.2 Cost-Efficiency Data Submitted by Motor Manufacturers

In addition to the analysis described above, the Department asked a working group of motor

manufacturers established by NEMA and SMMA to provide comparable data. The results for

steel-grade changes, provided by four manufacturers, show considerable variability in both

baseline motor efficiency and the incremental cost of efficiency improvements (Figure 4.1).

Each manufacturer selected a typical motor to use as the "baseline motor." The Department

believes that each manufacturer used somewhat different methods and assumptions concerning

efficiency and cost changes. Furthermore, the precise steel grades considered varied, so the data

are presented in terms of Grades 1, 2, and 3 (see Table 4.1 above).

21

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 4.1 Increase in Efficiency and Cost from Steel-grade Change , Capacitor- Start,

1/z horsepower, NEMA/SMMA data*

*Cost for Companies A, B, and D includes capital for new production tooling

For steel-grade options, the NEMA/SMMA data in the tables below refer to the average values

of the four submissions. In calculating the average cost-efficiency relationship, the Department

averaged the PU values and efficiencies of the four submissions for each grade (i.e. "Grade 1",

"Grade 2," and "Grade 3"). For stack-length change options, the NEMA/SMMA working group

provided data that it considered most typical.

4.2 EFFICIENCY AND COST IMPACTS OF DESIGN OPTIONS

The tables below present the results of the analyses of steel-grade and stack-length change design

options. All calculations assume operation at 70 percent of the rated load.

4.2.1 Capacitor-Start Motors: Steel-grade Options

The Department presents engineering data for steel-grade design options in the capacitor-start

motors in Tables 4.2 to 4.4. The Department examined efficiency improvements for 56 frame

and 48 frame motors which the Department refers to as 4K and 6K , respectively. The NEMA

average data show much less efficiency gain than does the DOE analysis.

Table 4.2 Capacitor-start DOE #4K, % horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.25

Input (Watts) 492 462 447 438

Output (Watts) 265 265 265 265

Loss (Watts) 227 197 182 173

Efficiency 53.9% 57.4% 59.3% 60.5%

22

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 4.3 Capacitor-start DOE #6K, 1/2 horsepower, 4- pole, ODP

Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.25

Input (Watts) 417 399 391 378

Output (Watts) 261 261 261 261

Loss (Watts) 156 138 130 117

Efficiency 62.6% 65.4% 66.8% 69.0%

Table 4.4 Capacitor-start NEMA, 1/ horse ower, 4-pole, ODP

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.10 1.21

Input (Watts) 435 423 415

Efficiency 60.0% 61.7% 62.9%

4.2.2 Capacitor-Start Motors: Stack-change Options

The Department presents engineering data for stack-length change design options in the

capacitor-start motors in Tables 4.5 to 4.7. In the Department's analysis, the stack-length change

options yield less efficiency gain (for the DOE 6K) than do the steel-grade options discussed

above. The NEMA/SMMA analysis shows somewhat greater efficiency gain from stack change

than does DOE's analysis of the 6K motor, and a greater efficiency improvement for stacklength change than the NEMA/SMMA analysis for steel-grade improvement.

Table 4.5 Capacitor-start DOE #4K, 1/

horsepower, 4 pole, OD

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.09 1.19 1.29

Input (Watts) 492 458 441 429

output 265 266 266 266

Loss (Watts) 227 192 175 163

Efficiency 53.9% 58.1% 60.3% 62.0%

Table 4.6 Capacitor-start DOE #6K, % horse ower, 4-pole, ODP

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.07 1.15 1.22

Input (Watts) 417 411 405 401

Output (Watts) 261 261 261 261

Loss (Watts) 156 150 144 140

Efficiency 62.6% 63.5% 64.4% 65.1%

23

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 4.7 Capacitor-start NEMA, % horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

Input (Watts) 421 406 398 392

Efficiency 62.0% 64.3% 65.5% 66.5%

4.2.3 Polyphase Motors: Steel-grade Options

The Department presents engineering data for steel-grade design options in the polyphase motors

in Tables 4.8 to 4.11. DOE analyzed efficiency improvements for three baseline motors: Dayton

motors with model numbers 3N641, 2N103, and 3N102. The Department refers to the data

derived from these three baseline motors as "polyphase DOE #3N, %2 horsepower," "polyphase

DOE #2N, %2 horsepower," and "polyphase DOE #3N, 1 horsepower" respectively. In DOE's

analyses, the lowest-loss option (M47) yields an efficiency gain of approximately 5.0 to 5.5

percentage points. The NEMA average shows an increase of four percentage points from the

baseline motor to Grade 3.

Table 4.8 Polyphase DOE #3N, !Y/2 h rse ower, 4-pole, ODP

Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.15

Input (Watts) 361 352 347 338

Output (Watts) 267 267 267 267

Loss (Watts) 94 85 80 71

Efficiency 74.0% 75.8% 76.9% 79.0%

Table 4.9 Polyphase DOE #2N, 1/2 horse ower, 4-pole, ODP

Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 0.93 0.96 1.00 1.14

Input (Watts) 381 368 363 353

Output (Watts) 266 266 267 267

Loss (Watts) 115 102 96 86

Efficiency 70.1% 72.3% 73.5% 75.6%

Table 4.10 Polyphase NEMA, 1/2 horse ower, 4-pole, ODP

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.10 1.20

Input (Watts) 383 369 362

Efficiency 68.1 70.7 72.1

24

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 4.11 Polyphase DOE #3N, One horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Grade A+ Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 1.0 1.04 1.20

Input (Watts) 699 682 658

Output (Watts) 534 534 534

Loss (Watts) 165 148 124

Efficiency 76.4% 78.3% 81.2%

Note: Grade B yields same efficiency as Grade A+

4.2.4 Polyphase Motors: Stack-change Options

The Department presents engineering data for stack-change design options in the polyphase

motors in Tables 4.12 to 4.15. The efficiency gain from an increase in stack length is quite

dependent on the baseline motor design. For the DOE #3N, '/2 horsepower motor, the efficiency

increase is only 1.5 percent from base to plus 3 stack, while for the DOE #2N, %2 horsepower

motor, the improvement is 4.7 percent. The NEMA/SMMA data for a %2 horsepower motor

shows a relatively small improvement from stack length changes of only 1.9 percent.

Table 4.12 Pol hase DOE #3N, %2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.10 1.17 1.23

Input (Watts) 361 359 354 355

Output (Watts) 267 268 266 268

Loss (Watts) 94 91 88 87

Efficiency 74.0% 74.7% 75.1% 75.5%

Table 4.13 Pol hase DOE #2N, 1/horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.08 1.23 1.37

Input (Watts) 363 358 347 340

Output (Watts) 267 267 266 266

Loss (Watts) 96 91 88 87

Efficiency 73.5% 74.6% 76.6% 78.2%

25

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 4.14 Pol phase NEMA, 1/z horse ower, 4-pole , ODP

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.24

Input (Watts) 361 357 353 352

Efficiency 72.2% 73.1% 73.9% 74.1%

Table 4.15 Pol phase DOE ON, One horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus '3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.06 1.18 1.24

Input (Watts) 699 692 677 674

Output (Watts) 534 534 534 534

Loss (Watts) 165 158 143 140

Efficiency 76.4% 77.2% 78.9% 79.2%

26

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
CHAPTER 5. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE

EFFICIENCY OF SMALL MOTORS

5.1 METHOD AND DATA

To assess the LCC to end users of designs that improve motor efficiency, the Department

conducted an analysis that compares the incremental first cost to the value of electricity savings.

In particular, the LCC analysis compares the incremental first cost to the discounted value of

electricity savings over the life of the motor. The simple payback period analysis calculates the

amount of time required for the electricity savings to equal the incremental first cost, assuming

the electricity savings in future years is constant and equal to that in the first year.

The analysis requires several inputs:

1. Typical use in terms of hours and loading;

2. Typical price for the baseline motors (so the percentage change in per unit cost can be

expressed in dollar terms);

3. Typical motor lifetime;

4. Electricity price; and

5. Discount rate (to convert future operating cost savings into present value terms).

The Department discusses these variables below.

5.1.1 Motor Use

The estimates of average annual hours of use, loading, and shipments for each application

category (see Chapter 3) yield shipments-weighted-average values as follows:

• Annual hours of use: 2500 (for both capacitor-start and polyphase)

• Average loading (percent of rating): 70%

5.1.2 Price for the Motors

The Department calculated average purchase prices for the prototype motors using the following

assumptions:

Table 5.1 Calculated Average Purchase Prices for Prototype Motors

Channel Distribution of

sales (%o)

Purchase price

(% of list)

Motor Manufacturers ? OEMs 40 38

Motor Mfrs ? Distributors ? OEMs 25 47

Motor Mfrs ? Distributors ? End Users 35 70

27

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
The resulting weighted-average price is 51 percent of list. The Department applied this value for

each motor analyzed. For the motors it analyzed, the Department used model-specific list prices

given in the 2001/02 Grainger catalog.' For the motors analyzed by the NEMA/SMMA working

group, the Department estimated list prices based on representative motors in the Grainger

catalog.

The Department assumes that the full incremental cost of higher-efficiency motors is passed on

to equipment buyers by the OEMs without additional markup. This assumption affects 65

percent of the sales as shown in the two rows with OEM end-users in Table 5.1 above.

Also, for each product class, the Department chose the cost-efficiency data that corresponded to

the baseline motor that is most representative of the product class (today). For the Department's

capacitor start analysis, the Department selected the "DOE 6K" data, while for the Department's

polyphase motor analysis, the Department used the "polyphase DOE #3N, one horsepower" data.

5.1.3 Motor Lifetime

The typical lifetime of small motors in the field is not well understood. Studies by one

manufacturer show that small motors have an "L10" life (defined as the point where 10 percent

of test population has failed) under typical operating conditions of around 25,000 hours

("typical" assumes no start/stop or excessive vibration, 75° C bearing temperatures, normal

mineral-oil-based bearing lubricants, and regular-sized lubricant reservoirs). For an average use

of 2500 hours per year, that would yield a ten-year L10 life. The key input parameter for the

Department's analysis is the average lifetime. Because only 10% of motors have failed at the

L10 life, the L10 life underestimates the average lifetime which is likely to be one to several

years longer.

The life of a motor depends on a variety of factors in the service conditions of the application.

These include environment (largely temperature), loading of the motor, and speed of rotation.

The studies cited above have shown that bearing failure is by far the most common cause of

motor failure. In turn, the main reason for bearing failure is failure of the lubricant, mainly due

to heat generation and consequent lubricant degradation.

The three-phase integral motor in mostly three-digit sizes has an average life of 11 or 12 years.

While most integral-horsepower motors have grease fittings on the bearings (per industry

standards), all two-digit motors and fractional horsepower motors have permanently sealed

bearings. This means the life of the two-digit motor is no longer than the breakdown point of the

lubricant and, as a result, the life of the two-digit motor will likely be shorter than that of the

three-digit motor. Motor-industry experts consulted by the Department suggest that the average

life for two-digit motors is at most 10 years, depending on the usage and physical environment.

The Department received some input on motor lifetime from OEMs. A complicating factor is

that, in some cases, the potential lifetime of the motor may be longer than that of the equipment.

Thus, the actual motor lifetime is limited by the lifetime of the equipment. Similarly,

replacement motors, which account for about one-third of the market for the considered motors,

28

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
may have a shorter average lifetime than motors installed in original equipment if the equipment

fails sooner than anticipated.

The NEMA/SMMA small-motor-efficiency task force agreed with an estimated average life of 5

to 10 years for fractional horsepower motors, with the average being closer to 10 years for threephase and closer to 5 years for single-phase motors.

Based on the above considerations, the Department elected to use a mean lifetime of seven years

for capacitor-start motors and nine years for polyphase motors, as the approximate values that

are most consistent with available motor lifetime information.

5.1.4 Electricity Price

The Department determined the relevant price of electricity based on the type of entities that

purchase and own considered small motors. The Department estimates that, based on the market

research done by Easton Consultants, approximately three-fourths of capacitor-start motors are

used by utility customers on a commercial tariff, while most users of small, polyphase motors are

on an industrial tariff.2 The Department based commercial and industrial electricity prices on

the average of the 2010 and 2020 forecasts from the Energy Information Administration's

Annual Energy Outlook 2006.3 For capacitor-start motors, the Department derived an average

price, giving a 0.75 weighting to the commercial price. For polyphase motors, the Department

increased the industrial price of electricity by five percent to reflect its belief that use of these

motors is weighted toward smaller facilities, which would pay a higher tariff than large,

industrial customers.

Table 5.2 Electricity Prices

Motor Type Price used in the analysis

(cents/kWh*)

Capacitor-start 7.2

Polyphase 5.6

*Cents in year 2005 values

5.1.5 Discount Rate

The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to estimate their present

value. The Department derived the LCC discount rates for considered small motors from data it

collected for the LCC discount rate estimates in the distribution transformer rulemaking.

Following financial theory, the cost of capital can be interpreted in three ways: 1) it is the

discount rate that should be used to reduce the future value of cash flows to be derived from a

typical company project or investment; 2) it is the economic cost to the firm of attracting and

retaining capital in a competitive environment; and 3) it is the return that investors require from

their investment in a firm's debt or equity. The Department primarily used the first

interpretation. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments; for most

companies, therefore, the cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity

and debt financing.

29

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Appendix C presents the details of the Department's estimates of the cost of capital for

commercial and industrial companies. The Department estimates the real (i.e., inflationadjusted) cost of capital for commercial companies as 7.3 percent, and that of industrial

companies as 7.5 percent. Because industrial companies purchase the bulk of small motors, the

Department used the 7.5 percent discount rate for its LCC analysis.

5.2 RESULTS FOR CAPACITOR-START, INDUCTION-RUN MOTOR DESIGN

OPTIONS

The tables and figures below present key results of the LCC and payback period analyses. The

Department only presents results for the most typical motors. Specifically, for the Department's

engineering data, the Department selected the "DOE 6K " data for the capacitor start product

class, while for the Department's polyphase motor analysis , the Department used the "polyphase

DOE #3N, one horsepower" data. Note that the baseline motors are different in the DOE and

NEMA/SMMA analyses.

In the DOE analysis, the steel-grade options all have lower LCC than the baseline motor. The

Department presents these results numerically in Table 5.3 and graphically in Figure 5.1. In

contrast, the steel-grade results based on the NEMA/SMMA average data, presented in Table 5.4

and Figure 5.2, show essentially no change in LCC for grade 2 and then an increase in LCC for

grade 3.

The DOE results in Table 5.3 and Figure 5.1 show that the stack -length options increase the

LCC. The NEMA results, presented in Table 5.4 and Figure 5.2, show a slight decrease for the

first stack-length option, but then an increase in LCC for the stack-change options that result in

higher efficiencies.

Table 5.3 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Capacitor-Start, 'h

horsepower, DOE Data*

Steel Grade Stack Change

Grade A

(Base) Grade B Grade B+ M47 PlusStack

Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer* * $103 $106 $114 $129 $111 $119 $126

Annual Operating Cost $75 $72 $70 $68 $74 $73 $72

Life-Cycle Cost (7.5% DR) $501 $487 $486 $490 $502 $505 $508

Change in LCC (WRT Base) -$14.07 -$14.47 -$11.37 $1.51 $4.05 $7.47

Percent Change in LCC -2.8% -2.9% -2.3% 0.3% 0.8% $1.5%

Payback Period (years) 1.0 2.2 3.7 6.7 7.2 7.9

*Data refer to a specific typical motor

**Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.

30

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
$520

$510

Stack Change

Steel Grade

$460

$450

60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70%

Efficiency

Figure 5.1 Capacitor-start 1/a horsepower -- DOE Data

Table 5.4 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Capacitor-Start, 1/2

horsepower, NEMA/SMMA data

Steel Grade* Stack Change**

Grade 1

(Base)

Grade 2 Grade 3 Base Plus Stack Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer*** $117 $128 $141 $117 $128 $140 $152

Annual Operating Cost $78 $76 $75 $76 $73 $72 $71

Life-cycle Cost (7% DR) $532 $532 $537 $518 $516 $520 $526

Change in LCC (WRT Base) -$0.01 $5.20 -$2.63 $1.41 $7.36

Percent Change in LCC 0.0% 1.0% -0.5% 0.3% 1.4%

Payback Period (years) 5.3 6.7 4.3 5.6 6.7

* Data are average of four manufacturers

** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor

*** Estimated by DOE based on Grainger catalog prices

31

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
$550 --

$ 540

$530

$520

$510

$500

$490

$480

$470

$460

$450

59% 61% 63% 65% 67% 69%

Efficiency

Figure 5.2 Capacitor-start % horsepower -- NEMA/SMMA data

Steel Grade

Stack Change

In summary, for capacitor start motors, the Department's analysis shows large economically

justified (from the perspective of the `average owner') energy savings for steel-grade changes,

and no economically justified potential savings from stack-length change design options. In

contrast, the NEMA/SMMA data shows potentially economically justified savings for small

improvements obtained from both stack-length change and steel-grade improvements.

5.3 RESULTS FOR POLYPHASE MOTOR OPTIONS

Tables 5.5 and 5.6 present key results of the LCC analysis for the most typical polyphase motors.

Table 5.5 presents results based on the DOE data, and Table 5.6 presents results based on the

NEMA/SMMA data. Graphical results are provided in Figures 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. Note

that the baseline motors are different in the DOE and NEMA/SMMA analyses.

In the DOE analysis, the steel-grade options all have lower LCC than the baseline motor.

However, the NEMA/SMMA average results show essentially equivalent results for grades I and

2, followed by a slight increase in LCC for grade 3. In both the DOE and NEMA/SMMA

analyses, the stack-length options increase the LCC relative to the baseline motors, although the

"plus stack" and "plus 2 stack" options have life-cycle costs that are only slightly higher than the

baseline motor in the DOE analysis.

32

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 5.5 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase One

Steel Grade Stack Change

Grade A+

(Base)

Grade B+ M47 Plus

Stack

Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer* * $119 $124 $143 $126 $140 $148

Annual Operating Cost $98 $96 $93 $97 $95 $95

Life-cycle Cost (7.5% DR) $746 $736 $733 $747 $748 $752

Change in LCC (WRT Base) -$10.49 -$12.98 $0.86 $1.69 $6.14

Percent Change in LCC -1.4% -1.7% 0.1% 0.2% 0.8%

Payback Period (years) 2.0 4.1 7.3 6.9 8.1

*Data refer to a specific typical motor

**Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.

$760 -

$750

Stack Change

-s-- Steel Grade

$710

$700

76% 77% 78% 79% 80% 81% 82%

Efficiency

Figure 5.3 Polyphase One horsepower -- DOE Data

horsepower, DOE Data*

33

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 5.6 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase %

Steel Grade* Stack Change**

Grade 1

(Base)

Grade 2 Grade 3 Base Plus

Stack

Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer*** $125 $138 $151 $126 $136 $146 $156

Annual Operating Cost $53.9 $51.9 $50.9 $50.8 $50.2 $49.7 $49.5

Life-cycle Cost (7% DR) $469 $469 $475 $450 $456 $463 $472

Change in LCC (WRT Base) -$0.02 $6.02 $6.48 $12.96 $22.14

Percent Change in LCC 0.0% 1.3% 1.4% 2.9% 4.9%

Payback Period (years) 6.4 8.4 17.9 17.9 23.9

* Data are average of four manufacturers

** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor

*** Estimated by DOE based on Grainger catalog prices

$500

$490

$480

$470

$460

$450

$440

$430

$420

$410

$400

67% 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%

Efficiency

73% 74%

Figure 5.4 Polyphase % horsepower -- NEMA/SMMA data

75%

-4- Steel Grade

Stack Change

In summary, for polyphase motors, the Department's analysis shows economically justified

(from the perspective of the `average owner') energy savings for steel-grade changes, and no

economically justified potential savings from any stack-length change design options. The

horsep ower, NEMA/SMMA data

34

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
NEMA/SMMA data show small economically justified savings for small improvements obtained

from steel-grade improvements, and no economically justified savings for improvements

obtained from stack-length changes.

REFERENCES

1. Grainger Industrial Supply, 2001. Catalog No. 392.

2. Easton Consultants, 2001. Analysis of considered motors use by principal machinery

categories (prepared for this study).

3. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-0383(2006),

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 2006.

35

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
CHAPTER 6. POTENTIAL NATIONAL ENERGY AND CONSUMER IMPACTS OF

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR SMALL MOTORS

For this determination analysis, the Department analyzed a range of forecast scenarios and

potential efficiency improvements to characterize the national impacts of a possible energy

conservation standard for considered small motors. National impacts depend on the base-case

motor efficiency, potential shipments growth, and the source of motor cost-efficiency data (since

the Department's the NEMA/SMMA data are substantially different). For each national impact

result and each cost-efficiency data source, the Department provides four results corresponding

to the following forecast scenarios:

1. Low-efficiency-gain base case (1/4 precent average gain relative to year 2000), low

shipments growth (1 percent per year)

2. Moderate-efficiency-gain base case (1 percent average gain relative to year 2000), high

shipments growth (1 percent per year)

3. Low-efficiency-gain base case (1/4 percent average gain relative to year 2000), high

shipments growth (1.5 percent per year)

4. Moderate-efficiency-gain base case (1 percent average gain relative to year 2000), high

shipments growth (1.5 percent per year)

The next two sections present details of the methodology and results of the national impact

estimates.

6.1 METHOD

In each product class, the Department used the characteristics of a representative motor of

average size as a primary input into the estimation of national impacts:

• Capacitor-start motors 1/2 horsepower

• Polyphase motors one horsepower

The Department used the results of the DOE and manufacturers' engineering analyses (Chapter

4) to provide the cost-efficiency characteristics of the representative motor. Specifically for the

Department's capacitor start analysis, the Department selected the "DOE 6K" data, while for the

Department's polyphase motor analysis, the Department used the "polyphase DOE #3N, one

horsepower" data. For polyphase motors, however, the Department only used the DOE results,

as the manufacturers' analysis was based only on 1/2 horsepower motors which is 1/2 of the

average size of motors of this product class, and thus is not representative of this product class's

cost-efficiency characteristics. For each design option, the Department expresses the estimated

savings relative to the base case.

The Department believes that the motors it analyzed (open drip-proof, four-pole) serve as

reasonable proxies for enclosed motors and two- and six-pole motors. The Department would

expect, however, that an analysis that developed separate estimates for two, four, and six-pole

36

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
motors would show somewhat different results, as would one that made discrete estimates for

different horsepower ratings.

A simplifying assumption in the calculation is that each level of energy-efficiency improvement

reflects an average attained by all new motors sold in each considered year. Thus, if a standard

were set at a specific level of energy-efficiency improvement, the savings attributable to the

standard are a function of the difference in efficiency relative to the base-case motor.

The Department assumed standards take effect in 2010 and calculated impacts for motors sold in

the 2010-2030 period. The accounting model calculates total end-use electricity savings in each

year with surviving motors (some of the motors sold in 2030 operate through 2040). The model

uses a product retirement function to calculate the number of units in a given vintage that are still

in operation in a given year. The retirement function assumes that there is a five-year range of

individual motor lifetimes centered around the mean lifetime, and equal numbers of motors are

retired in each of these five years. For example, for a seven-year average lifetime, twenty

percent of motors are retired in five, six, seven, eight, and nine years respectively.

The Department calculated primary energy savings associated with end-use electricity savings

using data from the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2006.1 These data yield an average

multiplier for end-use electricity to primary energy (power plant consumption) for each year for

2010-2020. The Department extrapolated the 2010-2020 trend for the 2021-2040 period.

For assessing direct economic impacts on end users, the Department used the incremental

equipment costs for each energy-efficiency improvement level presented in Chapter 5. The

Department assumed that the current estimated incremental costs remain the same in the 2010-

2030 period of motor sales. In addition, the Department assumed that electricity prices remain at

the projected 2010-2020 average through 2040.

The Department discounted future costs and benefits using a discount rate of seven percent, in

keeping with "Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs"

issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 1992.2 This rate approximates the marginal

(inflation-adjusted) pre-tax rate of return on an average investment in the private sector in recent

years.

6.1.1 Projection of Future Shipments

As discussed in Chapter 3, the past growth in annual shipments of the considered motors

(including imported motors) is not known, but NEMA did provide confidential data on two-digit

frame-size, fractional-horsepower motor sales to domestic customers by NEMA manufacturers,

covering the period from 1971 to 2001. Based on the NEMA shipments data, the Department

estimated the average annual growth rate to be 1.5 percent. Although the motors that the

Department analyzed make up only around 20 percent of the motors covered by these data,

industry experts suggest that growth in sales of the considered motors is likely to be similar to

that of all fractional horsepower motors because the demand for both considered and nonconsidered fractional horsepower motors is closely tied to overall growth in the U.S. economy.

37

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Several factors suggest that the growth in future sales may be slower than in the past. First, at a

basic level, U.S. economic growth is expected to be slightly slower than that in the 1970-2000

period. Second, continuation of the current trend toward greater use of defmite-purpose small

motors would mean that sales of the general-purpose motors considered in this analysis would

increase more slowly. Finally, foreign manufacturers of end-use equipment incorporating

considered small motors may have lower production costs sufficient to gain market share at the

expense of U.S. -based manufacturers, which would reduce U.S. domestic demand for small

motors.

Based on the above considerations, the Department estimated impacts for two scenarios of

average annual growth in shipments in the 2010-2030 period: one with 1.0 percent growth and

the other with 1.5 percent growth. The Department refers to these two scenarios, respectively, as

the "low shipments growth" and "high shipments growth" scenarios.

6.1.2 Base-case Efficiencies

In addition to the problem of forecasting future shipments, the Department is faced with

uncertainty about product efficiencies in the base case. The Department has only limited

knowledge regarding the past trend in efficiency because of insufficient data-availability. This

imperfect historical knowledge means that it is difficult to establish a single base case efficiency

forecast. For this reason, the Department used two base-case efficiency scenarios.

The perspective of the NEMAISMMA working group and of other motor industry experts with

whom the Department consulted is that the past 20-30 years have seen "very little to moderate"

improvement in efficiency. Some gains occurred in the 1970s as electricity prices rose, and there

has also been some spillover into small motors from efficiency improvement in integral

horsepower motors. A number of manufacturers have introduced "premium-efficiency," small,

polyphase motors. In the case of capacitor-start motors, there has been some growth in the use

of more-efficient capacitor-run models, which to some extent has lessened the need to improve

the more common induction-run models.

Following the above discussion, the Department identified the following two base-case

efficiency scenarios: In the Low-Efficiency-Improvement base case, the average efficiency of

motors sold in the 2010-2030 period is % percent better than the current-base-case motors (e.g.,

62.25 percent compared to 62 percent). In the Moderate-Efficiency-Improvement base case, the

average efficiency is one point better than the current-base-case motors. The Department

believes that these two cases plausibly bound future efficiency improvements in the absence of

standards.

38

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
6.2 ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL ENERGY AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

In this section, the Department provides estimates of the potential energy savings and national

consumer impacts from potential motor efficiency improvements. The Department provides the

results in graphical form for all design options, showing the energy savings as a function of

design option in the form of a blue bar in units of "quads," quadrillion British thermal units, and

showing net national economic impacts as squares (connected by a thin blue line) in Figures 6.1

through 6.3. The results for those design options that maximize energy savings while remaining

economically justified are presented in tabular form for each economic forecast scenario and

each set of engineering analysis data that the Department applied to the national impact analysis.

6.2.1 Capacitor-Start Motors

Figure 6.1 shows the results of the Department's national impact analysis for each of the

Department's engineering design options for the four forecast scenarios for capacitor-start

motors. For all scenarios, the M47 steel grade design option provides the greatest amount of

potential energy savings. It also provides a positive national NPV for all forecast scenarios.

Thus the results for this design option provide the Department's estimate of potential savings and

potential net benefits from a standard for capacitor-start motors. As summarized in Table 6.1,

the energy savings for motors sold between 2010 to 2030 ranges from 0.47 to 0.59 quad, and the

national NPV ranges from $0.28 to $0.35 billion, depending on the forecast scenario.

Capacitor Start 1/2 HP 6K

1/4% Efficiency Improvement Base Case - 1.6% Shipments Growth

1.00

0.50

0.00

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

-0- NPV (billion $)

Grade B Grade B+ M47 Plus Stack Phis Y-'3tack,Plus 3 Stack

0.50

Capacitor Start 1/2 HP 6K

114% Efficiency Improvement Base Case -1 1% ShipmentGrowth

1.00

0.50

0.00

-0.50

Grade B Grade B+

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

-0- NPV (billion $)

M47

1.50

1.00

0.50

Ca pacitor Start 1/2 HIP 6K S ^ ^- -

1% Efficiency Improvement Base Case -• 1 1.6 % Shipments Growth

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

-0- NPV (billion $)

0.00 4-

-0.50 1.

Grade B Grade B+ M47 Plus Stack Plus 2 Stack^'PNs$"Gtack

Capacitor Start 1/2 HP 6K

1% Efficiency Improvement Base Case - 1% Shipments Growth

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

-0- NPV (billion $)

1.00

0.50

0.00

-0.50

LL^_...TL_ tiv...l1

Grade B Grade B+ M47 Plus Stack Plus 2 Stack I'IOs-'stack

Figure 6.1 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, DOE

Analysis

39

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 6.2 shows the same information as Figure 6.1 except for the NEMA/SMMA engineering

data inputs rather than the Department's engineering data. The left portion of the plots represent

the steel grade design options, while the right hand portion of the plots represent the results from

the stack-length change design options. For the NEMA/SMMA data, the greatest energy savings

is found for the design option with the largest stack-length change. But this option does not have

positive national NPV for any of the forecast scenarios. However, three of the four scenarios

have a positive national NPV for the smallest stack change option. For this design option and the

NEMA/SMMA data, the energy savings ranges from 0.12 to 0.21 quad and a national NPV

ranging from a negative $0.05 billion to a positive $0.04 billion as Table 6.1 details.

Capacitor Start 112 HP - NEMA

1/4% Efficiency Improvement Base Case -1.6 % Shipments Growth

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

-L- NPV (billion $)

Capacitor Start 112 HP - NEMA

1/4% Efficiency Improvement Base Case - 1% Shipments Growth

1 . 50 - - ..-.._...........__.....^.._.._._____

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

1 00

,s^ NPV(billion $)

.

0.50

0.00

j^ '((III

.nom r_.^-.q.-,-.E^.

Grade 2 - Gr0e 3 Plus Stack Plus 2 Stack-..plus 3 Stack

-0.50 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Capacitor Start 1/2 HP - NEMA

1% Efficiency Improvement Base Case -1.6% Shipments Growth

1.50 ............................................................................................................................................................................................

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

--t}- NPV (billion $)

1 .00

0 .50

0.00 -^-q

Grade 2~~~ Grade 3 Plus Stack Plus-Z. tack Plus 3 Stack

-0.50

Capacitor Start 1 /2 HP - NEMA

1% Efficiency Improvement Base Case -1% Shipments Growth

1 . 50

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

....fl....._ NPV (billion $)

1 . 00

0.50

0.00 -,--,-

Grade 2 Grade 3 Plus Stack Plus2btack Plus 3 Stack

1^7

-0.50 ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Figure 6.2 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts,

NEMAISMMA data

40

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 6.1 Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency

Improvement for Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors Projected to be

Sold in the 2010-2030 Period*

NPV

Energy Savings (Year 2005 dollars in billions,

(Quads) discounted at 7 percent to

Future Scenario 2005)

NEMA/ NEMA/ DOE SMMA DOE SMMA

Low-efficiency-gain base case, low 0.54 0.19 0.33 0.04 shipments growth

Low-efficiency-gain base case, high 0 59 0 21 0 35 0 04 shipments growth . . . .

Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, low 0 47 0 12 0 28 -0 05 shipments growth . . . .

Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, high

shipments growth 0.51 0.12 0.30 -0.05

* The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of highest energy savings

and most favorable consumer NPV.

6.2.2 Polyphase Motors

Figure 6.3 shows the results of the Department's national impact analysis for each of the

Department's engineering design options for the four forecast scenarios for polyphase motors.

As with capacitor-start motors, the M47 steel-grade design option provides the greatest amount

of potential energy savings for all forecast scenarios. It also provides a positive national NPV

for all forecast scenarios. Thus the results for this design option provide the Department's

estimate of potential savings and potential net benefits from a standard for polyphase motors. As

summarized in Table 6.2, the energy savings for motors sold between 2010 to 2030 ranges from

0.14 to 0.19 quad, and the national NPV ranges from $0.08 to $0.11 billion, depending on the

forecast scenario.

41

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Polyphase Motors - DOE

114% Efficiency Improvement Base Case - 1.6% Shipments Growth

0.30, ................................................................................................................................................................................................

0.20

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

--C NPV (billion $)

Polyphase Motors - DOE

1% Efficiency Improvement Base Case - 1.6% Shipments Growth

0.30

Primary Energy Savngs (Quads)

0.20 -0- NPV (billion $)

0.10

0.00

.;:-

- q- ^_

Grade B+ M47 Plus Stack Plus 2 Stack Plus' Stack

-0 . 10

-0 . 20

0.10

0.00

Grade B+ M47 Plus Stack Plus 2 Stack-Prus-5Stack

0.10

0.20

Polyphase Motors - DOE

1/4% Efficiency Improvement Base Case - 1% Shipments Growth

0.30 .._.._.._..__...__.....___._._...___.__._.._

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

0.20 °{J-- NPV (billion $)

0.10

0.00

Grade B+ M47 Plus Stack Plus 2 Stack PI0s4},htack

-0 . 10

-0.20 --._.._.___..____._ ...........________......______._...__..__._.^...._._._.^.._.

Polyphase Motors - DOE

1% Efficiency Improvement Base Case - 1 % Shipments Growth

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.10

-0.20

Primary Energy Savings (Quads)

t3..... NPV (billion $)

Grade B+ M47 Plus Stack Plus 2 Stack Pus 3-Stack[

Figure 6.3 Polyphase Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, DOE Analysis

Table 6.2 Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency

Improvement for Polyphase Motors Projected to be Sold in the 2010-2030

Period*

NPV

Energy Savings (Year 2005 dollars in

(Quads) billions, discounted at 7

Future Scenario percent to 2005 )

NEMAI NEMA/ DOE SMMA DOE SMMA

Low-efficiency-gain base case, low Not Not

shipments growth 0.17 Available 0.10 Available

Low-efficiency-gain base case, high Not Not

shipments growth 0.19 Available 0.11 Available

Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, low Not Not

shipments growth 0.14 Available 0.08 Available

Moderate-efficiency-gain base case, high Not Not

shipments growth 0.15 . Available 0.09 Available

* The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of highest energy savings

and most favorable consumer NPV.

42

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
6.2.3 Total Energy and Economic Savings

Given the national impact results for the capacitor start and polyphase motor product classes, the

results based on the Department's engineering analysis indicate a potential energy savings

ranging from 0.61 to 0.78 quad and a national NPV ranging from $0.36 to $0.46 billion.

Based on the NEMA/SMMA engineering data, estimates of national energy savings and national

NPV are approximately 1/3 of the magnitude of the estimates based on the Department's

engineering data (for capacitor-start motors).

REFERENCES

1. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, DOE/EIA-03 83(2006),

U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 2006.

2. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular No. A-94. Appendix C. 2002. (Last

accessed November, 2002.) This material is available in Docket #86. Contact Ms. Brenda

Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-2945 for

more information. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a94_appx-c.html>

43

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
APPENDIX A. INFORMATION COLLECTION PROCESS ON USE OF SMALL

MOTORS

Small motors are used in a variety of equipment. Easton Consultants identified 14 industrial

categories and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories and more

than 45 categories of equipment that use small motors as defined. These include such diverse

types of equipment as farm milking machines, industrial pumps, packaging machines, and

machine tools.

The information collected for each category included the following three types:

Type 1 - Usage information

• Horsepower range,

® Average horsepower,

® Average hours of use,

® Qualitative information on specific applications (e.g., ambient conditions),

® Estimate of typical motor loading, and

• Other application-specific information.

Type 2 - Motor selection information

® Information on motor-purchasing practices and procedures by OEMs who use considered

motors in their products,

® The degree to which changes in motor size related to improved efficiency may be

incompatible with equipment designs used by OEMs,

® The degree to which motor efficiency is a significant consideration for OEMs, and

® Other selection-related information.

Type 3 - Quantitative (shipments) information

Annual shipments of each considered motor type (capacitor-start and polyphase) for each

category.

The Department used an information-collection process that followed a sequence of steps

moving from general sources to specific sources, as needed. The Department proceeded step-bystep for each of the 14 categories as follows:

® Step 1 -In-house expertise . The Department started with its own expertise on each of

the categories from past projects. The Department assembled this information as the

starting point.

® Step 2 --Industry associations. The Department contacted the association or

associations servicing each of the categories for general information on the industry,

important players, industry characteristics and trends, and motor use.

44

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
® Step 3 --Industry literature search. The Department conducted a review of the relevant

trade magazines and reports available publicly for relevant motor-related information on

motor selection and use.

® Step 4 --Company information review. The Department explored the information

available on one or two leading motor-using company web sites (particularly product

specifications), requesting specifications from the sales department where not available

on the Internet.

® Step 5 --Expert assistance. The Department worked with a former director of market

research of a motor manufacturer who has extensive industry background.

® Step 6 --Direct motor-using company informal discussion . After the above-sources

had been fully utilized, the Department conducted a series of informal telephone

interviews with equipment designers and engineers in each of the sectors. It designed

these interviews to collect the specific information needed, and varied them for each

category depending on the specifics of what was needed for that category. In these

interviews the Department discussed:

o Types of motors used in the particular equipment, to identify the approximate

proportion of all motors that are considered motors,

o Sizes of motors used,

o Typical hours of operation of the motors,

o Motor loading against its rated horsepower,

o Role of energy efficiency in the decision and the rationale,

o Health of the industry,

o Technical changes expected that would affect motor use,

o Typical life of the motor in this equipment's service, and

o Other related subjects.

45

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
APPENDIX B. METHOD FOR ESTIMATING CONSIDERED SMALL . MOTORS

SHIPMENTS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

As part of the effort to support the DOE project, "Development of Application Information for

General Purpose Small Electric Motors Considered for Efficiency Standards ," Easton

Consultants conducted an analysis to estimate the shipments of considered small motors to each

of 14 industry segments.

There is no single source that provides a measurement of the shipments of considered motors in

the principal industries of use. As a result , the Department had to rely on a variety of sources of

information, each of which provided only a piece of the puzzle. By integrating all of those

available and then applying judgment, the Department has developed a reliable "first cut"

estimate. The cornerstone of the estimates was first-hand research with a number of

manufacturers of small-motor-using equipment.

The data sources used included the following:

1. Discussion with 4-10 equipment OEMs (product designers, engineers) in each of the

small-motor-using equipment industries.

2. Survey of the small-motors manufacturers conducted by NEMA to measure the total

shipments of considered motors.

3. The U.S. Census Bureau 's Census of Manufacturers ( 1997), which measures equipment

shipments and certain component usage by each of the principal small-motor-using

industries.

4. Industry associations that cover the principal small-motor-using industries.

5. Catalogs of equipment using small motors.

6. Expert counsel from an individual who was formerly a market research manager with a

leading motor manufacturer.

7. Past Easton projects on small-motor use, particularly the 1995 project conducted for

DOE.

In the following chart, the Department has defined the role of each source of information in

determining the estimates.

The Department compiled the initial set of shipments estimates in the year 2001 for this analysis.

Subsequently, additional legislation resulted in more products being covered by energy

conservation standards. Thus the Department adjusted its shipments estimates. The two key

newly covered products are commercial clothes washers , and HVAC equipment from 240,000 to

760,000 Btu/hour. The Department assumed a reduction in shipments of 50 percent and 80

percent for considered small motors for these two applications as a result of the products being

newly covered and made the corresponding adjustment to capacitor-start and polyphase motor

shipments. This analysis provided new shipments estimates that the Department related to the

earlier shipments with a shipments adjustment factor of 0.74 and 0.85 for capacitor-start and

polyphase motors respectively.

46

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table B.1 Data and information source descriptions

Information Description Principal Value Limitations Importance

Source of Source

OEM Discussions First hand inputs The sample of OEMs Very High

Interviews with from engineers and was necessarily a small

manufacturers designers who make sample of the many

of small motor the motor selection companies using small

using decisions in the user motors.

equipment industries

NEMA Survey Survey of Provided a reliable Did not provide any High

principal small measure of the total information on the

motors number of equipment in which the

manufacturers considered small motors are used

motor shipments by

size and type

Census of Survey of U.S. (1) Shipments of Difficult in most cases Low

Manufacturers Manufacturers motor using to match equipment

(1997) equipment definitions with motor

type

(2) Shipments of Data given for all High

small motors to each shipments; considered

industry motors not broken out.

Industry Organizations Information on Most information could Low

Associations supporting sector structure (e.g. not be tied directly to

industrial major companies), motor use

sectors trends, economic

health,

Equipment Equipment Often explicit as to Most catalogs do not Low

catalogs descriptions for the type and size of provide motor use

sales purposes motors used information; only a few

were useful

Expert counsel Review by an "Reality check" on Motor manufacturers do Medium

experienced estimates not have good

market information on where

research head small motors are used

formerly with

a motor

manufacturer

Past Easton Easton files on A variety of Information generally Medium

Reports small motor information, esp. dated

use from the 1995

from past report on small

projects motors

47

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
APPENDIX C. SMALL MOTORS DISCOUNT-RATE CALCULATIONS

The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to estimate their present

value. The Department derived the LCC discount rates for considered small motors from data it

collected for the LCC discount rate estimates in the distribution transformer rulemaking.

Following financial theory, the cost of capital can be interpreted in three ways : 1) it is the

discount rate that should be used to reduce the future value of cash flows to be derived from a

typical company project or investment ; 2) it is the economic cost to the firm of attracting and

retaining capital in a competitive environment ; and 3) it is the return that investors require from

their investment in a firm's debt or equity. The Department primarily used the first

interpretation. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments; for most

companies, therefore, the cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity

and debt financing.

The Department estimated the cost of equity financing using the Capital Asset Pricing Model

(CAPM). The CAPM, among the most widely used models to estimate the cost of equity

financing, assumes that the cost of equity is proportional to the amount of systematic risk

associated with a firm. For example, the cost of equity financing tends to be high when a firm

faces a large degree of systematic risk, and the cost tends to be low when the firm faces a small

degree of systematic risk.

The degree of systematic risk facing a firm and the subsequent cost of equity financing are

determined by several variables, including the risk coefficient of a firm (beta, or B), the expected

return on risk-free assets (Rf), and the additional return expected on assets facing average market

risk (which is known as the equity risk premium, or ERP). The beta indicates the degree of risk

associated with a given firm , relative to the level of risk (or price variability) in the overall stock

market. Betas usually vary between 0.5 and 2.0. A firm with a beta of 0.5 faces half the risk of

other stocks in the market; a firm with a beta of 2.0 faces twice the overall stock-market risk.

Following this approach, the cost of equity financing for a particular company is given by the

equation:

where:

ke=R.f+(B xERP)

Eq. C.1

ke = the cost of equity for a company,

Rf = the expected return of the risk-free asset,

B = the beta of the company stock, and

ERP = the expected equity risk premium, or the amount by which investors expect the

future return on equities to exceed that on the riskless asset.

The cost of debt financing (kd) is the yield or interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company

(raised, for example, by selling bonds). As defined here, the cost of debt includes compensation

for default risk and excludes deductions for taxes.

48

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
The Department estimated the cost of debt for companies by adding a risk adjustment factor to

the current yield on long-term corporate bonds (the risk-free rate). This procedure is used to

estimate current (and future) company costs to obtain debt financing. The adjustment factor is

based on indicators of company risk, such as credit rating or variability of stock returns.

The discount rate of companies is the weighted-average cost of debt and equity financing, less

expected inflation. The Department estimated the discount rate using the equation:

where:

k=(ke Xwd+(kd Xwd)

Eq. C.2

k = the (nominal) cost of capital,

ke and kd = the expected rates of return on equity and debt, respectively, and

we and wd = the proportion of equity and debt financing, respectively.

The real discount rate deducts expected inflation from the nominal rate.

The expected return on risk-free assets, or the risk-free rate, is defined by the current yield on

long-term government bonds. The ERP represents the difference between the expected (average)

stock market return and the risk-free rate. As shown in Table C. 1, the Department used an ERP

estimate of 5.5 percent, which it took from the Damodaran Online site (a private website,

associated with New York University's Stern School of Business, that aggregates information on

corporate finance, investment, and valuation).'

The Department calculated an expected inflation of 2.3 percent from the average of the last five

quarters' change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) prices.2 The Department obtained the cost of

debt, percent debt financing, and systematic firm risk from information provided at the

Damodaran Online website.' Table C.1 shows average values across all private companies.

However, the cost of debt, percent debt financing, and systematic firm risk vary by sector.

Table C.1 Cost of Capital Factors

Variable Symbol Average Value Source

Risk-free asset return Rf 5.5% Bloomberg Professional

Equity risk premium ERP 5.5% Damodaran Online'

Expected inflation r 2.3% U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Cost of debt (after tax) kd 9.0% Damodaran Online'

Percent debt financing wd 27% Damodaran Online'

Systematic firm risk B 0.99 Damodaran Online'

Small motors are purchased and owned by commercial and industrial companies. The

Department used a sample of 3,182 companies to represent small motor owners. It took the

sample from the list of companies included in the Value Line investment survey and listed on the

Damodaran Online website.''4 The Department obtained the cost of debt, the firm beta, the

49

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
percent of debt and equity financing, the risk-free return, and the equity risk premium from

Damodaran Online.I

The Department estimated the cost of debt financing for these companies from the long-term

government bond rate and the standard deviation of the stock price.5

As previously mentioned, the cost of capital may be viewed as the discount rate that should be

used to reduce the future value of typical company project cash flows. It is a nominal discount

rate, since anticipated future inflation is included in both stock and bond expected returns.

Deducting expected inflation from the cost of capital provides estimates of the real discount rate

by small motor ownership category (see Table C.2).

Table C.2 Real Discount Rates by Small Motors Ownershi p Category

Ownership Category SIC Codes * Mean Real

Discount Rate (%)

Standard

Deviation (%)

Number of

Observations

Industrial Companies 1-4 7.5 3.2 2409

Commercial Companies 5-8 7.3 4.7 1773

*SIC Codes refer to the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification system. Source: Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (LBNL) calculations based on firms sampled from the Damodaran Online website.

Because industrial companies purchase the bulk of small motors, the Department used the 7.5

percent discount rate for its LCC analysis.

The Department's approach for estimating the cost of capital provides a measure of the discount

rate spread as well as the average discount rate. The Department inferred the discount rate

spread by ownership category from the standard deviation, which ranges between 3.2 percent

and 4.7 percent (Table C.2).

REFERENCES

1. Damodaran, A. Damodaran Online. 2003. Stern School of Business, New York University.

(Last accessed February, 2003.) This material is available in Docket #86. Contact Ms. Brenda

Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-2945 for

more information. <http://www.stem.nyu.edu/-adamodar/New-Home-Page/data.html.>

2. U.S. Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis. GDP price change: Q3, 2000

- Q3, 2001. 2002. (Last accessed February, 2003.) This material is available in Docket #86.

Contact Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies

Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121,

telephone (202) 586-2945 for more information. Note: this quarterly report is no longer

accessible from the BEA site. <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/glance.htm>

3. Bloomberg, L. P. Bloomberg Professional. 2003. (Last accessed February, 2003.) This

material is available in Docket #86. Contact Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of

Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

50

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Washington, DC, 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-2945 for more information.

<http://about.bloomberg.com/professional/profservice.html>

4. Value Line. Value Line Investment Survey. 2003. (Last accessed January, 2003.) This

material is available in Docket #86. Contact Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of

Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC, 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-2945 for more information.

<http://www.valueline.com>

5. Federal Reserve Board. Statistics: Releases and Historical Data - Selected Interest Rates -

State and Local Bonds. 2002. (Last accessed February, 2003.) This material is available in

Docket #86. Contact Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building

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

20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-2945 for more information.

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/hl 5/data/m/slbond.txt>

6. Ibbotson Associates. Cost of Capital 2001 Yearbook. 2001. Ibbotson Associates: Chicago, IL.

51

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards

for Small Electric Motors

Draft for Public Comment

June 2003

Building Technologies

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...........................................v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... vi

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................1

1.1 Background ...................................................... 1

1.2 Overview of Considered Small Motors ................................. 2

1.3 Applications for Considered Small Motors .............................. 3

1.4 Study Approach ................................................... 4

2. GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS ........... 5

2.1 Three-phase Squirrel Cage Induction Motors ............................ 5

2.2 Single-phase Squirrel Cage Induction Motors ............................ 6

2.3 Energy Efficiency: Basic Considerations ................................ 7

3. THE MARKET FOR CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS ........................ 9

3.1 Annual Shipments ................................................. 9

3.2 Features of Considered Small Motors .................................. 9

3.3 Range of Energy Efficiencies ........................................ 12

3.4 Market Structure and Actors ........................................ 13

3.5 Motor Purchasing ................................................. 16

4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS ................ 18

4.1 Approach ....................................................... 18

4.2 Efficiency and Cost Impacts of Design Options ......................... 21

4.3 Discussion ...................................................... 25

5. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF SMALL MOTORS ............................. 27

5.1 Method and Data ................................................. 27

5.2 Results for Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motor Options ................. 30

5.3 Results for Polyphase Motor Options ................................. 33

6. POTENTIAL NATIONAL ENERGY AND CONSUMER IMPACTS OF ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR SMALL MOTORS ..................... 35

6.1 Method ......................................................... 35

6.2 Estimates of Potential Energy and Consumer Impacts .................... 37

7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS .............................................. 41

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
APPENDIX A. INFORMATION COLLECTION PROCESS ON USE OF SMALL

MOTORS ................................................. 43

APPENDIX B. METHOD FOR ESTIMATING CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

SHIPMENTS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR ........................ 45

APPENDIX C. SMALL MOTORS DISCOUNT RATE CALCULATIONS ......... 47

iii

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Total Domestic Shipments of Fractional Horsepower Motors in 1999 ......... 3

Figure 3-1 Capacitor-Start IR Motors - Shipments in 2000 ......................... 10

Figure 3-2 Small 3-Phase Motors - Shipments in 2000 ............................ 11

Figure 3-3 Listed Efficiency (full load) of Small Motor Models ..................... 13

Figure 4-1 Increase in Efficiency and Cost from Steel Grade Change, CapacitorStart, 1 /2 horsepower, NEMA Data ................................... 20

Figure 6-1 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts,

LBNL Analysis .................................................. 38

Figure 6-2 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts,

NEMA Data ..................................................... 39

Figure 6-3 Polyphase Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, LBNL Analysis .. 40

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Major Applications for Considered Small Motors .......................3-4

Table 3-1 Leading Manufacturers of Considered Small Motors Sold in the U.S. ........ 14

Table 3-2 Average Utilization Characteristics for General Purpose Small Motors by

Type of Application ............................................... 15

Table 3-3 Estimated Annual Shipments of General Purpose Small Motors by Type of

Application ...................................................... 16

Table 4-1 Electrical Steel Options Considered .................................. 19

Table 5-1 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, CapacitorStart, 1/2 horsepower LBNL Data .................................... 31

Table 5-2 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, CapacitorStart 1/2 horsepower, NEMA Data ................................... 32

Table 5-3 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User,

Polyphase 1 horsepower, LBNL Data ................................. 33

Table 5-4 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Capacitor

Start 1/2 horsepower, NEMA Data ................................... 34

iv

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CSCR capacitor-start, capacitor-run

CSIR capacitor-start, induction-run

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act

hp Horsepower

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

LCC Life-cycle cost

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NPV Net present value

ODP Open dripproof

OEMs Original equipment manufacturers

quad One quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (Btu) or 293.1 billion kilowatt hours

SMMA Small Motor and Motion Association

V

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose

Under 346(b)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) the

Department of Energy (DOE or Department) may determine whether energy conservation

standards for certain small electric motors would be technologically feasible, economically

justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In order to have a basis for a

determination, the Department performed this analysis.

Scope of Motors Analyzed

Under section 340(13)(F) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F), the term "small electric motor"

means a National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) general purpose, alternating

current, single-speed, induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance

with NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, "Motors and Generators." The two-digit frame

series encompasses NEMA frame sizes 42, 48 and 56. The horsepower ratings for the two-digit

frame series range from 1/4 to 3 horsepower. These motors operate at 60 Hertz and have either a

single-phase or a three-phase (polyphase) electrical design. Section 346(b)(3) of EPCA, 42

U.S.C. 6317(b)(3), also states that a standard prescribed for small electric motors shall not apply

to any small electric motor that is a component of a covered product under section 332(a) of

EPCA or covered equipment under section 340.

Among single-phase two-digit frame motors, only capacitor-start motors, including both

capacitor-start, induction-run (CSIR) and capacitor-start, capacitor-run (CSCR), can meet the

torque requirements for NEMA general purpose motors. Among three-phase small motors, only

non-servo motors can meet the NEMA performance requirements for general purpose motors.

Hence, the analysis covers only these types of small motors. Market research indicates that the

annual commercial sales volume of CSIR, CSCR and polyphase small motors meeting the

EPCA definition is approximately 4 million units for capacitor start and 1 million units for

polyphase designs. These motors are used in a wide variety of commercial and industrial

applications, with the largest being pumping equipment and commercial/industrial heating,

ventilating, air conditioning equipment rated over 240,000 Btu/h.

Methodology

The analysis methodology consisted of five major elements: (1) Market research to better

understand how small motors are used; (2) engineering analysis to estimate how different design

options affect efficiency and cost; (3) life-cycle cost analysis to estimate the costs and benefits to

users from increased efficiency in small motors; (4) national energy savings analysis to estimate

the potential energy savings on a national scale; and (5) national consumer impacts analysis to

estimate potential direct economic costs and benefits that would result from energy efficient

small motors. Actual testing of sample motors was conducted. In conducting the engineering

and life-cycle cost analyses, the Department utilized two sets of data. The first set was derived

vi

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
from motor testing and design costing conducted by an independent motor industry expert in

consultation with a working group comprised of major manufacturers of small motors. The

methodology used is similar to methods commonly used by motor manufacturers. The second

set of data was submitted by the aforementioned working group.

Summary of Results

Energy efficiency-enhancing design options considered in this study have the energy savings

potential described below. Differences in estimates of the efficiency and cost increases

associated with the options and uncertainty about future shipments and efficiency trends produce

a range of estimates for economic impacts for the considered motors.

Capacitor-start, induction-run motors. The analysis based on DOE's motor testing and costing

shows potential cumulative energy savings from motor efficiency improvement ranging from 0.6

to one quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy over the period 2010 to 2040. The

corresponding cumulative economic benefit for consumers , expressed in terms of net present

value of benefits (NPV) ranges from $0.4 billion to just over $ 1 billion.

Analysis based on average data from the NEMA/SMMA working group indicates lower potential

energy savings and economic benefits. The highest savings scenario , which in this case refers to

the stack change design option, shows energy savings of 0.6 quads with an NPV of $0.1 billion.

In the scenario with least savings, the options all have negative NPV.

Polyphase motors. The analysis based on DOE's motor testing and costing shows cumulative

energy savings from steel grade changes ranging from a low of 0.15 quad to a high of 0.21 quad

over the period 2010 to 2030. The corresponding cumulative NPV range is from $0.09 billion to

$0.27 billion. The design options do not show positive NPV in most cases.

For polyphase motors, DOE did not make estimates of national impacts using the NEMA/SMMA

data because the manufacturers' analysis was based on a 1/2 horsepower motor instead of the

more typical one horsepower size. Furthermore , the manufacturers' analysis shows some

efficiency gains, but with an increase in life-cycle cost, which would lead to a negative NPV.

vii

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Under 346(b)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1), the

Department of Energy (DOE or Department) may determine whether energy conservation

standards for certain small electric motors would be technologically feasible, economically

justified, and would result in significant energy savings. The purpose of this draft analysis is to

provide a basis upon which the Department can make its determination.

Under section 340(13)(F) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F), the term "small electric motor"

means a National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) general purpose alternating

current single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with

NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987, "Motors and Generators." The two-digit frame series

encompasses NEMA frame series 42, 48 and 56. The horsepower ratings for the two-digit frame

series range from 1/4 to three horsepower. These motors operate at 60 Hertz and have either a

single-phase or a three-phase electrical design (also known as "polyphase").

Typical applications for such small electric motors include pumps, fans and blowers,

woodworking machinery, conveyors, air compressors, commercial laundry equipment, service

industry machines, food processing machines, farm machinery, machine tools, packaging

machinery, and major residential and commercial equipment.

EPCA section 346(b)(3) states that any energy conservation standard prescribed under subsection

(b)(2) "shall not apply to any small electric motor which is a component of a covered product

under section 322(a) or a covered equipment under section 340." Such covered products and

equipment that contain small electric motors include residential air conditioners and heat pumps,

furnaces, refrigerators and freezers, clothes washers and dryers, and dishwashers; and

commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners

and heat pumps, and warm air furnaces.

As a result of the above definitions and exclusions, small electric motors covered by EPCA

section 346(b)(1) only comprise about four percent of the total population of small electric

motors. Nevertheless, these motors, which the Department identifies here as "considered small

motors," account for a major portion of the energy consumed by the total population of small

motors because of their size and use.

1.2 Overview of Considered Small Motors

As a result of the above EPCA definitions and exclusions, the motors considered in this report

are a subset of the total population of small electric motors. Further , the term "general purpose"

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
in the EPCA definition' of a small motor is tied to the NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-1987

performance requirements that have been established for general purpose motors, such as the

minimum levels for breakdown and locked rotor torque for small electric motors presented in

MG 1-1987 paragraph 12.32.

Among considered, single-phase, two-digit motors, those of shaded pole, permanent split

capacitor, and split phase designs do not meet the torque requirements of NEMA general purpose

motors. Capacitor-start motors, including both capacitor-start, induction-run (CSIR) and

capacitor-start, capacitor-run (CSCR), can provide the torque requirements for NEMA general

purpose motors. Other single-phase motors such as universal, drip-proof, and series AC are

designed for definite or special-purpose applications.

The CSCR motor is not interchangeable with the CSIR motor in most cases because of

differences in size and starting torque. The addition of a second running capacitor to the motor

changes the dimensional envelope of the motor but not the frame size. In this analysis, the

Department considers the CSIR and CSCR motors as separate product classes. Although not

interchangeable for all applications, there may be some applications for which the CSCR offers a

high efficiency alternative to a CSIR motor.

Among polyphase small motors, synchronous stepper motors cannot provide the torque

requirements of NEMA general purpose motors, while polyphase servo motors are for definitepurpose applications. Polyphase non-servo motors do meet the NEMA requirements for general

purpose motors.

For the purposes of this analysis, the considered small electric motors that meet the EPCA

definition fall into three product classes:

• Single-phase, capacitor-start, induction-run motors

• Single-phase, capacitor-start, capacitor-run motors

• Polyphase (non-servo) motors

These classes accounted for close to 4 percent of total domestic shipments of fractional

horsepower motors in 1999 (Figure 1-1).

' EPCA does not define the term "general purpose motor," although it does define the terms "definite

purpose motor" and "special purpose motor." According to EPCA, "definite purpose motor" means "any motor

designed in standard ratings with standard operating characteristics or standard mechanical construction for use

under service conditions other than ususal or for use on a particular type of application and which cannot be used in

most general purpose applications." Section 340(13)(B), (42 U.S.C. 6311 (13)(B)). Likewise, "special purpose

motor" means "any motor, other than a general purpose motor or definite purpose motor, which has special operating

characteristics or special mechanical construction, or both, designed for a particular application." Id. at (C).

Consequently, the term general purpose must be derived by eliminating those definite and special purpose motors

and subsequently defined within the context of NEMA performance characteristics that can operate successfully in

many different applications.

2

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 1-1 Total Domestic Shipments of Fractional Horsepower Motors in 1999

Other

polyphase -\Small Motor Shipments, 1999

1%

Other single Capacit r start

3% Skeleton type

p hase

10%

shaded pole

Conventional

type shaded

pole

39%

Source: US Census Bureau, Current Industrial Reports, Motors and Generators -- MA335H

Not all capacitor-start and polyphase non-servo motors are NEMA general purpose motors.

Those in the "definite-purpose" category include many motors used for fans and blowers and

specific types of pumps.

1.3 Applications for Considered Small Motors

The applications for considered small motors are listed below:

Table 1-1 Major Applications for Considered Small Motors

Pumps and Pumping Equipment

Commercial and Industrial HVAC/Refrigeration Equipment

Farm Machinery

Conveyors

Industrial and Commercial Fans and Blowers

Machine Tools

Textile Machinery

Woodworking Machinery

Food Products Machinery

3

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Air and Gas Compressors

Packaging Machinery

General Industrial Machinery

Commercial Laundry Machinery

Service Industry Machinery

Many motors used in pumps and pumping equipment and industrial and commercial fans and

blowers are definite-purpose motors, but a significant number of general-purpose motors are also

used. In commercial and industrial HVAC equipment, the HVAC equipment that is covered

under other EPCA requirements (section 340) is rated at less than 240,000 Btu per hour (cooling

capacity). Motors under consideration in this study are used in larger equipment.

1.4 Study Approach

This study consisted of five major components:

• Market research to better understand usage patterns of considered motors;

• Engineering analysis to estimate the impact on efficiency and cost of feasible design

options;

• Life-cycle cost analysis to estimate the benefits and costs of efficiency improvement for

end users of small motors; and

• National energy savings analysis to estimate the potential national energy savings from

efficiency improvement of considered motors.

• National consumer impacts analysis to estimate the potential direct economic costs and

benefits resulting from efficiency improvement of considered motors.

The methods and data sources used are discussed in the relevant chapters.

4

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
2. GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS

2.1 Three-phase Squirrel Cage Induction Motors

Three-phase squirrel cage induction motors are used as the prime mover for the majority of

commercial and industrial sector motor applications requiring over a few horsepower, and in

many smaller applications as well.

The typical three-phase induction motor employs a wound stator and a "squirrel cage" rotor.

Magnetic force acting between the stator and rotor units produces motor torque . The stator

consists of a hollow cylindrical core formed by a stack of thin steel laminations. Insulated copper

windings are assembled into slots formed about the inner circumference of the core. Stator

winding carries current through one slot and then back though a companion slot located

approximately one pole pitch distant from the first. For a two-pole motor, the pole pitch is half

the circle, while for four- or six-pole machines, it is one-quarter or one-sixth of the circle,

respectively.

The rotor unit consists of a laminated steel core press fitted to the steel shaft. Like the stator, the

rotor core also has windings set into slots , but these are deployed about its outer circumference.

Moreover, in the squirrel-cage rotor configuration the rotor windings consist of solid conductor

bars that are interconnected at either end with solid-conductor end rings . Absent the laminated

steel core, this assembly of bars and end rings would look like a "squirrel cage" and hence the

nomenclature for this very sturdy and cost-effective construction.

When the stator windings are energized by a three-phase electrical source, a radially directed

magnetic flux is established in the "air gap" between the rotor and the stator. This flux rotates at

a speed determined by the electrical frequency and number of poles given by the stator-winding

configuration. For example, with 60 Hz excitation and a two-pole (or one-pole-pair) winding,

the flux rotates at a so-called "synchronous" speed of 60 revolutions per second (rps) or 3,600

revolutions per minute (rpm). The flux produced by the energized stator windings envelops the

rotor cage bars and due to its motion, induces current to flow in these conductors. The

interaction of the rotating stator flux and the rotor bar currents develops motor drive torque.

Important characteristics of the three-phase squirrel cage induction motor are simplicity and

ruggedness, inherently high starting torque (without the start-assisting devices required for

single-phase motors), and the potential to achieve high efficiency. Compared with larger motors,

the efficiency of small (one horsepower and below) three-phase induction motors declines

rapidly as the load drops below 70 percent of rated load.

Polyphase motors in a two-digit NEMA frame size range from 1/4 horsepower to three

horsepower, though the majority are one horsepower or less. They are available in two-, four-, or

six-pole configurations (corresponding to speeds of 3500 , 1750, or 1150 rpm, respectively). A

four-pole configuration is the most common.

5

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
2.2 Single-phase Squirrel Cage Induction Motors

The basic principal of operation of a single -phase, squirrel-cage, induction motor is similar to a

three-phase induction motor. A rotating magnetic field is easily established with three-phase

excitation of motor windings as described in the preceding subsection . In a single-phase

induction motor, two counter-rotating fields are produced which develop equal and opposite

rotor torque components when the motor is at standstill. However, if means are provided to urge

rotation in one direction or the other , net torque will be developed to sustain the rotation and

drive the attached load. While the electromagnetic torque acting on the rotor of a three-phase

motor is relatively smooth and free from pulsating disturbances, this is not the case in the singlephase motor. In this instance , the torque may pulsate from zero to a maximum value at twice the

power line frequency-e.g., 120 Hz. In most applications, this is of little consequence as the

inertia of the motor and the driven load act to smooth out the torque pulsations.

The basic construction of the single-phase induction motor includes a rotor and stator; each

contains a stack of electromagnetic grade steel laminations as previously described for the threephase motor. The "squirrel cage" rotor has a series of aluminum bars cast lengthwise into the

rotor laminations. These bars are connected with rings located at each end of the stack. The

stator laminations contain a series of slots for the windings that are aluminum or copper wire.

Two sets of windings are provided, at a 90°-phase difference. The "main" or "run" winding

operates directly from line current, and stays energized as long as the motor is running.

Single phase motors are categorized according to the way the "start and run," "secondary," or

"auxiliary" winding is utilized for starting the motor and then running it at normal speed. Widely

used single-phase motor categories are:

• The Split-Phase Motor -- This configuration is the least costly. The start winding has a

higher resistance-to-reactance ratio than the main winding, which is achieved by using a

relatively small diameter wire. This reduces both the amount and the cost of the copper

in the start winding and the space taken up in the stator slots by this winding.

• The Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run (CSIR) Motor -- This configuration is a relatively

low-efficiency motor that provides higher starting torque than the split-phase motor.

• The Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) Motor -- This configuration has a high potential

efficiency depending on the design.

• The Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run (CSCR) Motor -- This is an efficient run

configuration, with a large capacitance at start-up providing a large starting torque. The

start capacitance is typically three to five times the size of the run capacitor, but can be

packaged compactly, because continuous operation (and the resulting heat dissipation) is

not a consideration.

Split phase and CSIR motors use the secondary winding for starting only ; the capacitor start

version provides higher starting torque. The secondary winding uses a much smaller diameter

wire energized for a limited time without overheating and automatically disconnected after start

6

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
up by a centrifugal switch. In PSC and CSCR motors, the secondary winding continues

operating when the motor is running . The capacitor in series'with this winding shifts the phase

of the input voltage approximately 90°, so the two windings together create a rotating magnetic

field. The benefits achieved by PSC and CSCR motors are the suppression of torque pulsations

and the improved utilization of both the windings and the iron in the motor. These benefits

increase the efficiency and the power factor of the motor, but at an added cost associated with the

capacitor.

Single-phase motors in a two-digit NEMA frame size range from 1/4 horsepower to one

horsepower and are available in two-, four -, or six-pole configurations. A four-pole

configuration is the most common.

2.3 Energy Efficiency: Basic Considerations

The application of a motor to do work creates energy losses that are both external and internal to

the motor. Losses that are external to the motor are influenced by the power factor of the motor.

The power factor is the ratio of real power to apparent power, and ranges from zero to one. The

real power (measured in watts) is used to create the useful work (and waste heat) of the motor.

Reactive power (measured in volt-amps reactive) is used to create the magnetic field needed for

the motor to operate, but it does not contribute to the mechanical power generated by the motor.

Internal energy losses are usually categorized as conductive, magnetic, mechanical, and stray.

All of these energy losses appear as heat in the motor . Losses are strongly dependent on design

and quality control of motor components.

The conventional methods for reducing losses include increasing the amount of active material

(e.g., the diameter of wire conductors); substituting a higher grade of steel for the magnetic

components; improving the mechanical components and design (winding, bearings, and fan); and

improving the quality control of components and assembly. These methods may increase either

the motor cost or size if no other changes in the motor are made.

The precise impacts on motor cost and efficiency will depend on how the designer makes tradeoffs between added performance from improved materials or design and maintenance of the

motor performance. A designer cannot ignore interaction among different motor losses in the

process of optimizing . The I2R (the expression of heat loss in watts where I is measured current

and R is resistance) of the rotor is a key loss, as are windage, friction and stray losses. Options

that may reduce the stray loss can increase the core loss; those that can reduce the windage loss

may increase the I2R loss; those that may reduce the slip loss may increase the core loss.

Often a measure that enhances efficiency improves motor performance such that other costsaving changes can be made to offset the cost of the efficiency improvement. An example of this

is the use of more expensive high permeability steel in place of iron . This leads to higher

efficiency, smaller motor size, and improved torque, and also allows the volume of copper used

7

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
in the motor to be reduced while maintaining performance.

Various component additions to a single-phase motor are known to improve the efficiency while

increasing the cost and usually changing the motor's dimensions. Adding an auxiliary winding

with a capacitor, adding an auxiliary winding with a starting capacitor and switch, or adding an

auxiliary winding with starting capacitor, switch, and running capacitor to a single-phase motor

can reduce energy losses, increase torque, and improve the power factor. The additional winding

may be continuously energized as in the CSCR motor, or disconnected with a centrifugal switch

as is often done in the CSIR motor. The CSCR motor has a switch added in series with the

starting capacitor and adds a second running capacitor in parallel to the starting capacitor that is

not switched out of the circuit after starting. The auxiliary winding and running capacitor of the

CSCR motor contribute to motor output, allowing it to approach the efficiency of a polyphase

motor. The efficiency increase of the CSCR motor over the CSIR motor ranges from about five

percent to about 24 percent (EPRI, 1987).

REFERENCES

Electric Power Research Institute , 1987. Optimization of Induction Motor Efficiency, Vol. 2:

Single-Phase Induction Motors. EPRI EL-2152.

8

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
3. THE MARKET FOR CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

3.1 Annual Shipments

The historic trend in annual shipments of considered small motors is uncertain. Data from the

U.S. Census Bureau' show little growth in the 1990s, but these data only include motors

produced in the U.S.

NEMA provided confidential data on two-digit-frame-size, fractional-horsepower motor sales to

domestic customers by NEMA manufacturers, covering the period from 1971 to 2001. After

interpolating the data, the average annual growth rate is 1.5 percent. The three-phase and

capacitor-start motors being analyzed make up only around 20 percent of the motors covered by

these data.

A joint NEMA/SMMA survey of U.S. sales of considered small motors in 2000 estimated values

of 5.4 and 1.3 million for capacitor-start, induction-run (CSIR) and polyphase motors,

respectively. CSIR motors accounted for approximately 95 percent of total shipments of

capacitor-start motors.

3.2 Features of Considered Small Motors

The basic features of considered small motors sold in 2000 (according to the NEMA/SMIVIA

survey) are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.

Open motors account for 93 percent of total CSIR shipments. The most important size categories

(with roughly equal shares) are 1/3, 1/2, and 3/4 horsepower. The average size is 1/2

horsepower. Four-pole motors account for a somewhat higher share than two- and six-pole

motors.3

For polyphase motors, enclosed motors account for two-thirds of total shipments, reflecting the

greater use of such motors in industrial environments. The largest sales categories are 3/4 and

one horsepower. The average size is one horsepower. Four-pole motors account for two-thirds

of the total.

2 US Census Bureau, Current Industrial Reports, Motors and Generators -- MA335H. The Department has included

all single-phase motors, one horsepower and over, with capacitor-start motors.

s The shares of two- and six-pole motors are estimated values, as complete data were lacking.

9

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 3-1 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors - Shipments in 2000

Horsepower

Source: NEMA/SMMA survey

10

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 3-2 Small Polyphase Motors - Shipments in 2000

Source: NEMA/SMMA survey

11

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
3.3 Range of Energy Efficiencies

The Department assembled data from manufacturers' catalogs on the listed nominal full-load

efficiency and other features of over 700 different models (A.D. Little, 2001). While these data

provide an approximate picture of the spread of efficiencies on the market, two caveats bear

mention. First, the reported efficiencies are not precisely comparable among different

manufacturers, since they are not all based on the same test procedure. Second, many of the

models likely have a low sales volume , so looking at the spread of the data may not give an

accurate portrait of what is actually being sold.

Figure 3-3 shows the full-load efficiency versus, the nominal horsepower of capacitor -start and

three-phase motors in a popular design. Generally speaking , larger motors have higher efficiency

than smaller motors in a given class. For open , four-pole capacitor-start motors, the efficiency

range is greater for 3 /4 horsepower motors than for 1 /3 and 1/2 horsepower motors. Some of the

highest-efficiency motors larger than one horsepower are capacitor -start, capacitor-run motors.

For three-phase motors, there is also a significant range in efficiency.

The range of efficiencies for a given type and size is likely due in part to different methods of

testing among the manufacturers. Differences in specific features also play a role.

12

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 3-3 Listed Efficiency (full load) of Small Motor Models

85

80

75

70

C

65

60

55

50

45

0

80

75

60

55

Capacitor Start Motors: Open, 4 Pole

I

1 /2 1

Horsepower

Polyphase tors: Endosed, 4 Pole

I

50 1

0 1/2 1 11/2 2

Hasepower

Source: A.D. Little (2001)

3.4 Market Structure and Actors

The Department estimates the distribution channels for considered small motors as follows:

Motor Manufacturers 4 Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) 40%

Motor Manufacturers - Distributors 4 OEMs 25%

Motor Manufacturers 4 Distributors 4 End Users 35%

The latter are motors sold to end users as replacements or spares.

A high percentage of considered small motors sold in the U.S. are domestically manufactured. In

addition to imported stand-alone motors, some considered small motors are imported as

components of equipment built in other countries . The magnitude of such imports is difficult to

determine.

13

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 3-1 lists the manufacturers that produce most of the considered small motors in the U.S.

Table 3-1 Leading Manufacturers of Considered Small Motors Sold in the U.S.

Manufacturer Brand

A.O. Smith A.O. Smith, MagneTek,

Baldor Electric Baldor Electric Co.

Emerson Motors Emerson, U.S. Motors

General Electric GE Motors

Regal-Beloit Lincoln Motors, Marathon

Electric

Rockwell Automation Reliance Electric

TECO Electric and Machinery

Co. Ltd.

TECO, TECO-Westinghouse

Motor Company

Toshiba International

Corporation

Toshiba International

Corporation

WEG Electric Motor Corp. WEG

There are dozens of OEMs that incorporate considered small motors in industrial, agricultural,

and commercial equipment. These range in size from large to small companies.

The users of equipment containing considered small motors primarily consist of firms that have

the applications listed in Table 3-2. The large diversity of applications poses challenges with

respect to accurately characterizing typical motor usage patterns. To determine how considered

small motors are used, the Department conducted considerable research, including review of

trade literature and interviews with manufacturers that produce the equipment into which small

motors are built (Easton Consultants, 2001). See Appendix A for description of the information

gathering process.

The estimated typical annual hours of use ranges from 800 hours for air and gas compressors to

5000 hours for industrial/commercial fans and blowers. Many of the values are in the 2000-3000

range.

14

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 3-2 Average Utilization Characteristics for General Purpose Small Motors by

Application Hours/

year

Motor loading

(% of rated)

Farm Machinery 1000 70%

Conveyors 3000 50%

Machine Tools 2000 60%

Textile Machinery 3000 70%

Woodworking Machinery 2000 35%

Food Machinery 3000 60%

Pumps and Pumping Equipment 3000 65%

Air and Gas Compressors 800 85%

Industrial/Commercial Fans and Blowers 5000 80%

Packaging Machinery 3000 60%

General Industrial Machinery 2000 n/a

Commercial Laundry Machinery 2000 60%

Commercial and Industrial HVAC/Refrigeration Equipment 2500 60%

Service Industry Machinery 1500 n/a

Source: Easton Consultants (2001)

The Department also investigated typical motor loading practices. The motor loading is

commonly in the 60-70 percent range, though it is higher in two cases, and lower in two cases.

To assess the relative importance of different application categories, the Department estimated

the magnitude of annual shipments of considered small motors to each group (see Appendix B

for method). Motors used in pumps and pumping equipment and in commercial and industrial

HVAC/refrigeration equipment each account for approximately 30 percent of the total shipments

for capacitor-start motors. No other category accounts for more than ten percent. Motors used in

pumps and pumping equipment are the largest category for polyphase motors, followed by

commercial and industrial HVAC/refrigeration equipment and conveyors.

Type of Application

15

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 3-3 Estimated Annual Shipments of General Purpose Small Motors by Type of

Application Capacitor-Start Polyphase

`000 % `000 %

Farm Machinery 457 8.1 33 2.5

Conveyors 497 8.8 207 16.0

Machine Tools 81 1.4 81 6.2

Textile Machinery 18 0.3 13 1.0

Woodworking Machinery 101 1.8 34 2.6

Food Machinery 90 1.6 90 7.0

Pumps and Pumping Equipment 1723 30.4 364 28.1

Air and Gas Compressors 338 6.0 101 7.8

Industrial/Commercial Fans and Blowers 248 4.4 62 4.8

Packaging Machinery 12 0.2 11 0.8

General Industrial Machinery 101 1.8 38 2.9

Commercial Laundry Machinery 104 1.8 9 0.7

Commercial and Industrial HVAC/Refrig Equip. 1770 31.2 239 18.4

Service Industry Machinery 125 2.2 16 1.2

TOTAL, 5664 100 1297 100

Source: Easton Consultants (2001)

3.5 Motor Purchasing

An end user will almost always replace a worn-out motor with the same model, which means that

the motor purchase decision is effectively made by the OEMs, and not by the actors who use the

motors and pay for the electricity to run them.

The price paid for a motor depends on the type of purchaser and the volume purchased. Our

research indicates typical ranges as follows:

Channel

Purchase price

(% of list)

Motor Manufacturers - OEMs 37-40

Motor Mfrs 4 Distributors -> OEMs 46-48

Motor Mfrs - Distributors - End Users 65-75

Application

16

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Our interviews with OEMs inquired about their attitudes towards motor energy efficiency. Most

of the OEMs took a view of motor efficiency that can be summarized as follows:

1 Efficiency is not a high priority in selection of motors for most of the equipment studied.

The respondents characteristically stated that they have not given much attention to motor

efficiency in this size range primarily because their customers do not request more

efficient motors, and are more concerned with first cost than small reductions in operating

cost.

2. Somewhat more interest in energy efficiency was shown in some industrial categories --

conveyors, food products machinery, industrial pumps, and packaging equipment -- than

others. Relatively more interest in energy efficiency in general was expressed in these

industries where hours of operation are longer and the end-user customer is a more

sophisticated cost-sensitive operator. These categories in total represented about 40

percent of two-digit motors. (The response from the HVAC category was mixed, with

some OEM respondents quite interested in greater efficiency, and others not.)

3. In several instances some interest was shown in total motor system efficiency, particularly

adjustable speed drives. There is wide recognition that energy can be saved with the

installation of adjustable-speed drives and other devices to control motor systems,

particularly in HVAC fans and industrial pumps.

Many of the product designers noted that there are few premium-efficient, two-digit motors

available. They stated that even if an OEM wanted to use a more efficient motor it would be

difficult because motor manufacturers offer very few premium-efficient motors in these frame

sizes. In the case of several manufacturers of single-phase motors, the CSCR motors are

designated "premium efficient" in contrast to CSIR motors. However, the former are not always

physically interchangeable with a CSIR motor.

REFERENCES

Arthur D. Little, 2001. Small motor database (Prepared for this study).

Easton Consultants, 2001. Analysis of considered motors use by principal machinery categories

(Prepared for this study).

17

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

4.1 Approach

The most practical ways to adjust motor performance to achieve increased efficiency for the

considered small motors are: (1) change the grade of electrical steel; (2) change the stack length;

and (3) change the flux density by adjusting the effective turns or changing the thickness of the

steel. The latter option is only done at severe expense to the production process, so the

Department did not analyze it in this study.

The Department did not analyze optimizing of winding and wire. With respect to winding,

although there are optimum flux densities and torque per ampere characteristics that will yield

the best efficiencies, the gains may be at the expense of other performance characteristics. With

respect to wire, increased slot fill and proper end turn configurations will yield less I2R losses,

but there are limitations as to how much wire can be inserted automatically. Hand insertion,

which is an option in larger motors, is not practical for fractional motors.

For each product class, the Department selected several popular models to analyze. The

Department engaged a recently retired engineering executive from the motor industry (Austin

Bonnett) to conduct the analysis. The testing of the sample motors followed industry practice for

these motor types. It used the dynamic reaction torque procedure with a controlled acceleration

cycle using a d.c. drive motor. In three seconds 2000 data points were collected that

characterized the motor performance. Loss segregation was then achieved through computer

modeling and correlation. The influence of temperature is not included in this type of testing

because obtaining accurate results for this size of motor is problematic and this factor is not

significant.

The Department conducted separate analyses of change in the grade of electrical steel and change

in the stack length. The electrical steel options considered are shown in Table 4-1 (see section

below for discussion of the motor manufacturers' analysis). For stack changes, the options

considered involve incremental increases of 0.25 inch with respect to the sample motors.

Note: In this chapter, the term "Capacitor-Start" refers to capacitor-start motors with induction

run.

18

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 4-1 Electrical Steel Op tions Considered

Grade Type*

Maximum Loss

(watts/lb

15k 60 hz

Thickness

(inch)

LBNL Analysis

Grade A Cold rolled 4.51 0.031

Grade B Cold rolled 4.15 0.031

Grade A+ Cold rolled 4.04 0.025

Grade B+ Cold rolled 2.78 0.022

M47 Semi-processed

electrical

1.53 0.019

Manufacturers' Analysis

Grade 1 Cold rolled 0.026-0.031

Grade 2 Cold rolled 0.022-0.025

Grade 3 Semi-processed

electrical

0.018-0.022

* Semi-processed steel with full anneal after punching

The efficiency change for each design package was calculated using the traditional motor

performance program based on equivalent circuit analysis, which is used by most motor

manufacturers. The stator and rotor are assumed to be at ambient temperature. The I2R losses

are understated due to a lower resistance being used in the calculations. The effect could be

overstatement of motor efficiency in the 0.25-0.75 load range. However, the relationship among

various design options will be accurate.

Costing Changes in Design

The Department's analysis only considered the active material cost changes. These materials

include the electrical steel, copper winding and aluminum rotor bar/end ring. The active material

costs were calculated based upon typical costs when purchased in volume. No other materials

are normally affected by the design changes considered. Labor and burden were not considered

because the cost of labor is minor and the burden is spread over a large number of manufacturing

activities. The impact on set-up time and the introduction of new part numbers were also not

considered because such costs are uncertain and likely small.

19

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
The Base motor in each case was given a "per-unit" (PU) cost of one. All active material

changes are related to the PU cost of one. If a change in electrical steel represented a 10 percent

change in the total active material cost, for example, the PU number would be 1.10 for the new

design.

This methodology is quite commonly used by the motor industry (with some slight variations) for

an initial cost estimate of the impact of design changes. It is based on the assumption that labor

costs are a very small part of the total cost for motors of this type, where extensive automation is

employed. Of course, if the design change prevents the normal processes from being used, this

method is less accurate. Other costs can be broken into fixed and variable. The fixed costs

normally do not change, and the variable portion is absorbed based on large volume runs, and

hence is not included in the analysis.

Analysis Submitted by Motor Manufacturers

In addition to the analysis described above, the Department asked a working group of motor

manufacturers established by NEMA and SMMA to provide comparable data. The results,

provided by four manufacturers, show considerable variability (Figure 4-1). Each manufacturer

selected a typical motor to use as the "base motor." The Department believes that each

manufacturer used somewhat different methods and assumptions concerning efficiency and cost

changes. Furthermore, the precise steel grades considered varied, so the data are presented in

terms of Grades 1, 2, and 3 (see Table 4-1).

Figure 4-1 Increase in Efficiency and Cost from Steel Grade Change, Capacitor-Start,

1/2 horsepower,NEMA Data*

1.5

1.4

1.3

N

U 1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69

% % % % Effkie.c4 % % %

-o--Company A

--p-Company B

--Company C

Company D

Four Company

Average

* Cost for Companies A, B and D includes capital for new production tooling

20

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
For steel grade options, the NEMA data in the tables below refer to the average values of the four

submissions. For stack change options, the NEMA/SMMA working group provided data that it

considered most typical.

4.2 Efficiency and Cost Impacts of Design Options

The tables below present the results of the analyses of steel grade and stack length change. All

calculations assume operation at 70 percent of the rated load.

Capacitor-Start Motors: Steel Grade Options.

The 4K motor has relatively low efficiency, so the design options yield proportionately more

efficiency gain than for the more typical 6K motor. The NEMA average data show much less

efficiency gain than does the LBNL analysis.

Grade A Grade B Grade B' M47

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.25

Input (Watts) 492 462 447 438

Outpot (Watts) 265 265 265 265

Loss (Watts) 227 197 182 173

Efficiency 53.9% 57.4% 59.3% 60.5%

Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.25

Input (Watts) 417 399 391 378

Output (Watts) 261 261 261 261

Loss (Watts) 156 138 130 117

Efficiency 62.6% 65.4% 66.8% 69.0%

Capacitor-Start LBNL #4K, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Ca acitor-Start LBNL #6K, 1/2 horse power, 4-pole, ODP

21

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.10 1.21

Input (Watts) 435 423 415

Efficiency 60.0% 61.7% 62.9%

Capacitor-Start Motors: Stack Change Options

The stack change options yield less efficiency gain (for the LBNL 6K and NEMA motors) than do

the steel grade options. The NEMA/SMMA analysis shows somewhat greater efficiency gain from

stack change than does LBNL's analysis of the 6K motor.

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1 .09 1.19 1.29

Input (Watts) 492 458 441 429

Output 265 266 266 266

Loss (Watts) 227 192 175 163

Efficiency 53.9% 5 8.1% 60.3% 62.0%

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1 .07 1.15 1.22

Input (Watts) 417 411 405 4012

Output (Watts) 261 261 261 261

Loss (Watts) 156 150 144 140

Efficiency 62.6% 63.5% 64.4% 65.1%

Ca acitor-Start NENM, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, OD

Capacitor-Start LBNL #4K, 1/2 horse power, 4-pole, ODP

Ca acitor-Start LBNL #6K, 1/2 horse power, 4-pole, ODP

22

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1 .10 1.20 1.30

Input (Watts) 421 406 398 392

Efficiency 62.0% 64.3% 65.5% 66.5%

Polyphase Motors: Steel Grade Options

In LBNL's analyses, the lowest-loss option (M47) yields an efficiency gain of approximately five

points. The NEMA average shows an increase of four points from the base motor to Grade 3.

Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 1.00 1 .03 1.7 1.15

Input (Watts) 361 352 347 338

Output (Watts) 267 267 267 267

Loss (Watts) 94 85 80 71

Efficiency 74.0% 75.8% 76.9% 79.0%

Grade A Grade B Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 0.93 0.96 1.00 1.14

Input (Watts) 381 368 363 353

Output (Watts) 266 266 267 267

Loss (Watts) 115 102 96 86

Efficiency 70.1% 72.3% 73.5% 75.6%

Capacitor-Start NEMA, 1/2 horse ower, 4-pole, ODP

Polyphase LBNL #3N, 1/2 horsepower, 4- pole, ODP

Polyphase LBNL #2N, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

23

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.10 1.20

Input (Watts) 383 369 362

Efficiency 68.1 70.7 72.1

Grade A+ Grade B+ M47

P.U. Cost 1.0 1.04 1.20

Input (Watts) 699 682 658

Output (Watts) 534 534 534

Loss (Watts) 165 148 124

Efficiency 76.4% 78.3% 81.2%

Note: Grade B yields same efficiency as Grade A+

Polyphase Motors: Stack Change Options

The efficiency gain from stack changes is less than that for the steel grade options. For the "plus

stack" option, the LBNL and NEMA analyses agree reasonably well.

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.10 1.17 1.23

Input (Watts) 361 359 354 355

Output (Watts) 267 268 266 268

Loss (Watts) 94 91 88 87

Efficiency 74.0% 74.7% 75.1% 75.5%

Polyphase NEMA, 1/2 horse ower, 4-pole, OD

Polyphase LBNL #3N, 1 horse ower, 4-pole, ODP

Polyphase LBNL #3N, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

24

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.08 1.23 1.37

Input (Watts) 363 358 347 340

Output (Watts) 267 267 266 266

Loss (Watts) 96 91 88 87

Efficiency 73.5% 74.6% 76.6% 78.2%

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.24

Input (Watts) 361 357 353 352

Efficiency 72.2% 73.1% 73.9% 74.1 %

Base Plus stack Plus 2 stack Plus 3 stack

P.U. Cost 1.00 1.06 1.1 1.24

Input (Watts) 699 692 677 674

Output (Watts) 534 534 534 534

Loss (Watts) 165 158 143 140

Efficiency 76.4% 77.2% 78.9% 79.2%

4.3 Discussion

Changing to a lower-loss grade of steel may involve a change in thickness. The major

disadvantage of altering the thickness is that it usually requires new lamination punching dies,

because these are usually optimized for a finite thickness. Standardizing on one die can cause

excessive burr and slugs to stick in the dies. Most manufacturers only use one gauge of steel for

a particular diameter of stator.

Polyphase LBNL #2N, 1/2 horse power, 4-pole, ODP

Polyphase NENIA, 1/2 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

Polyphase LBNL ON, 1 horsepower, 4-pole, ODP

25

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Changing the stack length could cause the active material of the motor to exceed the mechanical

package that houses the stator and rotor, hence affecting the motor interchangeability for some

applications. If the motor frame is longer due to the increase in stack length, the motor may not

fit on the application. If the stack is too long for a given frame, it might restrict the ventilation

through the motor.

26

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
2. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS TO

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF SMALL MOTORS

5.1 Method and Data

To assess the life-cycle cost to end users of designs that improve motor efficiency, the

Department conducted an analysis that compares the additional up-front cost to the value of

electricity savings. The life-cycle cost analysis compares the cost to the discounted value of

electricity savings over the life of the motor. The simple payback analysis calculates the amount

of time required for the electricity savings to match the incremental cost.

The analysis requires several inputs:

1. Typical utilization in terms of hours and loading;

2. Typical price for the base motors (allows us to express the percentage change in per unit

cost in dollar terms);

3. Typical motor lifetime; and

4. Discount rate (to express the present value of future money savings).

The Department discusses these variables below.

Motor Utilization

The estimates of average annual hours of use, loading, and shipments for each application

category (see Chapter 3) yield weighted-average values as follows:

Annual hours of use: 2500 (for both capacitor-start and polyphase)

Average loading (percent of rating): 70%

Price for the Base Motors

The Department calculated average purchase prices for the prototype motors using the following

assumptions:

27

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Purchase price Distribution Channel (% of list) of sales

Motor Manufacturers - OEMs 40% 38

Motor Mfrs 4 Distributors -) OEMs 25% 47

Motor Mfrs 4 Distributors 4 70 35% End Users

The resulting weighted average price is 51 percent of list. The Department applied this value for

each motor analyzed. For the motors analyzed, the Department used model-specific list prices

given in the 2001/02 Grainger catalog (Grainger, 2001). For the motors analyzed by the

NEMA/SMMA working group, the Department estimated list prices based on representative

motors in the Grainger catalog.'

The Department assumes that the full incremental cost of higher-efficiency motors is passed on

to equipment buyers by the OEMs without additional markup.

Motor Lifetime

The typical lifetime of small motors in the field is not well determined. Studies at one

manufacturer show that small motors have an "L 10" life (defined as the point where 10 percent

of test population has failed) under typical operating conditions of around 25,000 hours ("typical"

assumes no start/stop or excessive vibration, 75° C bearing temperatures, normal, mineral-oilbased, bearing lubricants, and regular-sized lubricant reservoirs).5 For an average utilization of

2500 hours per year, that would yield a ten-year L10 life.

The life of a motor depends on a variety of factors in the service conditions of the application.

These include environment (largely temperature), loading of the motor, and speed of rotation.

The studies cited above have shown that bearing failure is by far the most critical factor in motor

failure. In turn, the main reason for bearing failure is failure of the lubricant, mainly due to heat

generation.

The three-phase integral motor in mostly three digit sizes has an average life of 11 or 12 years.

While these motors have grease fittings on the bearings (per industry standards), all two-digit

motors have permanently sealed bearings. This means the life of the two-digit motor is no longer

than the breakdown point of the lubricant, and as a result, the life of the two-digit will likely be

shorter than that of the three-digit. Motor industry experts consulted suggest that the average life

for two-digit motors is at most ten years, depending of course on the usage and physical

environment.

The Department received some input on motor lifetime from OEMs. A complicating factor is

that in some cases the potential lifetime of the motor may be greater than that of the equipment.

28

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Thus, the actual motor lifetime is limited by the lifetime of the equipment. Similarly,

replacement motors, which account for about one third of the market for the considered motors,

may have a shorter average lifetime than motors installed in original equipment if the equipment

fails sooner than anticipated.

The NEMA/SMMA small motor efficiency task force agreed with an estimated average life of

five to ten years for fractional motors, with the average being closer to ten years for three-phase

and to five years for single-phase motors. The studies mentioned earlier did not find a major

difference between small single and three-phase motors, however.

Based on the above considerations, the Department elected to use a mean lifetime of seven years

for capacitor-start motors and nine years for polyphase motors.

Electricity Price

The Department estimates that, based on the market research done by Easton Consultants,

approximately three-fourths of capacitor-start motors are used by utility customers on a

commercial tariff, while most users of small polyphase motors are on an industrial tariff. The

Department based commercial and industrial electricity prices on the average of the 2010 and

2020 forecasts from EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2001. For capacitor-start motors, the

Department derived an average price giving a 0.75 weighting to the commercial price. For

polyphase motors, the Department increased the industrial price slightly to reflect its belief that

use of these motors is weighted toward smaller facilities, which would pay a higher tariff than

large industrial customers.

Motor Type Price used in the analysis

(cents/kWh)

Capacitor-start 5.6

Polyphase 4.0

Discount Rate

Economists recommend that the discount rate applied to relatively broad categories of investment

should be set equal to the opportunity cost of the capital used to finance investments of

equivalent risk. In some cases, the opportunity cost of capital is the expected return to a

company stock. However, many firms use the company cost of capital as a general discount rate.

The company cost of capital is a weighted average of the expected return on the company's stock

and the interest rate that it pays for debt.

This approach is correct as long as the capital investment in question is typical for the company

as a whole. It can be misleading, however, if the capital investment has more or much less nondiversifiable risk than the company as a whole. In general, the appropriate discount rate to

29

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
evaluate low risk investments should be lower than the discount rate used to evaluate higher risk

investments. In particular, the discount rate used to evaluate electricity efficiency investments,

which have low risk, may be quite a bit lower than the rate used to evaluate other investments by

the firm.

The Department assumes that the ultimate investors in motor efficiency improvement are the end

users of the equipment. For the small motors considered herein, the end users are broadly

distributed across manufacturing and commercial sectors of the economy.

A list of companies was chosen to represent buyers of small motors (see Appendix C for details).

The cost of debt, cost of equity, debt share, equity share and beta (market risk) value for these

companies was obtained from the Damodaran financial data base. These data were then used to

calculate the weighted average cost of capital for each company.

The weighted average cost of capital for the representative companies, after deducting for

expected inflation, ranges from four percent to 11 percent. The average cost of capital for the

companies is 6.0 percent. The standard deviation of the cost of capital is 1.4 percent.

Based on the above, the Department used a discount rate of six percent for assessing efficiency

improvement as a typical investment.

5.2 Results for Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motor Options

Key results of the financial analysis are presented in the tables and figures below. The

Department only presents results for the most typical motors. Note that the base motors are

different in the LBNL and NEMA/SMMA cases. This difference is not of much importance,

however, since it is the relative change for each motor that is of most interest.

In the LBNL analysis, the steel grade options all have lower LCC than the base motor. Results

using the NEMA average data show an increase in LCC, however.

The LBNL analysis shows the stack length options increasing the LCC. The NEMA results show

a slight decrease for the first option, but then increase.

The difference in results for the two design options reflects the varying situation of different

manufacturers. Some are able to improve efficiency at lower cost using a change of steel grade,

while others can do so better using a stack change.

30

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 5-1 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Capacitor-Start,

1/2 horsepower, LBNL Data*

Steel Grade Stack Change

Grade A

(Base) Grade B Grade B+ M47

Plus

Stack

Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer** $91 $94 $100 $114 $97 $105 $111

Annual Operating Cost $58 $55 $54 $52 $57 $56 $56

Life-Cycle Cost (7% DR) $414 $403 $403 $407 $416 $418 $422

Change in LCC (WRT Base) -$11.21 -$11.02 -

$7.43

$1.73 $4.37 $7.65

Percent Change in LCC -2.7% -2.7% -

1.8%

0.4% 1.1% $1.8%

Payback Period (years) 1.1 2.5 4.2 7.7 8.2 9.0

*Data refer to a specific typical motor

**Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.

Capacitor Start 1/2 HP -- LBNL Data

d

w

J

$430

$420

$390

$380

$370 1

61% 62% 63% 64% 65% 66% 67% 68% 69% 70%

Stack Change

--4-- Steel Grade

Efficiency

31

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 5-2 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, CapacitorSteel Grade* Stack Change**

Grade 1

(Base)

Grade 2 Grade 3 Base Plus

Stack

Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer*** $103 $113 $125 $103 $113 $123 $134

Annual Operating Cost $60 $59 $58 $58 $56 $55 $54

Life-cycle Cost (7% DR) $440 $441 $446 $429 $428 $432: $437

Change in LCC (WRT Base) $0.80 $5.93 -$1.42 $2.67 $8.32

Percent Change in LCC 0.2% 1.3% -0.3% 0.6% 1.9%

Payback Period (years) 6.1 7.7 4.9 6.5

* Data are average of four manufacturers

** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor

*** Estimated by LBNL based on Grainger catalog prices

Capacitor Start 1/2 HP -- NEMA Data

$450

$440

- $430

0

U

a,

0 $420

U

d

vi $410

$400

$390

61% 62% 63% 64% 65% 66% 67% 68% 69% 70%

Efficiency

Start, 1/2 horse ower, NEMA Data

-+-Steel Grade

Stack Change

32

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
5.3 Results for Polyphase Motor Options

Key results of the fmancial analysis for the most typical motors are presented in the tables below.

The Department only presents results for the most typical motors. Note that the base motors are

different in the LBNL and NEMA/SMMA analyses.

In the LBNL analysis, the steel grade options all have lower LCC than the base motor. The

NEMA average results show an increase in LCC, however. In both analyses, the stack length

options increase the LCC relative to the base motors.

Table 5-3 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase 1

Steel Grade Stack Change

Grade A+

(Base)

Grade B+ M47 Plus

Stack

Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer** $105 $109 $126 $111 $124 $130

Annual Operating Cost $71 $69 $66 $70 $68 $68

Life-cycle Cost (7% DR) $585 $578 $578 $587 $589 $593

Change in LCC (WRT Base) -$7.49 -$7.19 $1.49 $3.77 $8.01

Percent Change in LCC -1.3% -1.2% 0.3% 0.6% 1.4%

Payback Period (years) 2.4 5.1 8.9 8.5

*Data refer to a specific typical motor

**Based on actual motor price in Grainger catalog.

Polyphase 1 HP -- LBNL Data

horsepower, LBNL Data*

$600

$590

$580

$570

$560

$550

76%

$540

77% 78% 79%

Efficiency

80% 81% 82%

Stack Change

--®- Steel G rade

33

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table 5-4 Impacts of Efficiency Improvement on Typical End User, Polyphase

Steel Grade* Stack Change**

Grade 1

(Base)

Grade 2 Grade 3 Base Plus

Stack

Plus 2

Stack

Plus 3

Stack

Motor Price-Buyer*** 110.6 121.7 132.7 111.0 119.9 128.8 137.6

Annual Operating Cost $38.7 $37.3 $36.6 $36.5 $36.1 $35.7 $35.6

Life-cycle Cost (7% DR) $396 $396 $402 $380 $385 $391 $399

Change in LCC (WRT Base) $0.65 $6.32 $5.90 $11.81 $19.95

Percent Change in LCC 0.2% 1.6% 1.6% 3.1% 5.3%

Payback Period (years) 7.8 10.3 22.0 22.0

* Data are average of four manufacturers

** Data reflect costs and performance of a typical motor

*** Estimated by LBNL based on Grainger catalog prices

Polyphase 1/2 HP, NEMA Data

1/2 horsepower, NEMA Data

$440

$430

$420

$410

$400

$390

$380

$370

$360

$350

67% 68% 69% 70% 71% 72% 73% 74%

$340

Efficiency

75%

-4-Steel Grade

Stack Change

34

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
6. POTENTIAL NATIONAL ENERGY AND CONSU MER IMPACTS OF ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR SMOTORS

6.1 Method

In each product class, the Department used the average size motor as the basis for the estimation

of national impacts:

Capacitor-start motors 1/2 horsepower

Polyphase motors 1 horsepower

The Department used the results of the LBNL and manufacturers' engineering analyses (Chapter

4) as the basis for national energy savings estimates. For polyphase motors, however, the

Department only used the LBNL results, as the manufacturers' analysis was based on a 1/2

horsepower motor. (The manufacturers' analysis shows some efficiency gains, but with an

increase in life-cycle cost.) For each design option, the estimated savings are relative to the Base

Case.

The Department believes that the motors analyzed (open drip-proof, four-pole) serve as

reasonable proxies for enclosed motors and two- and six-pole motors. The Department would

expect, however, that an analysis that developed separate estimates for four, two, and six-pole

motors would show somewhat different results, as would one that made discrete estimates for

different horsepower ratings.

A simplifying assumption in the calculation is that each level of energy efficiency improvement

reflects an average attained by all new motors sold in each considered year. Thus, if a standard

were set at a specific level of energy efficiency improvement, the savings attributable to the

standard are a function of the difference in efficiency relative to the Base Case motor.

The Department assumes standards take effect in 2010 and calculates impacts for motors sold in

the 2010-2030 period.

The accounting model calculates total end-use electricity savings in each year with surviving

motors (some of the motors sold in 2030 operate through 2040). The model uses a product

retirement function to calculate the number of units in a given vintage that are still in operation in

a given year. The retirement function assumes that individual motor lifetime is normally

distributed around the mean lifetime.

The Department calculated primary energy savings associated with end-use electricity savings

using data from EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2001. These data yield an average multiplier for

end-use electricity to primary energy (power plant consumption) for each year for 2010-2020.

The Department extrapolated the 2010-2020 trend for the 2021-2040 period.

35

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
For assessing direct economic impacts on end users, the Department used the incremental

equipment costs for each energy efficiency improvement level presented in Chapter 5. The

Department assumed that the current estimated incremental costs remain the same in the 2010-

2030 period of motor sales. In addition, the Department assumes that electricity prices remain at

the projected 2010-2020 average through 2040.

The Department discounted future costs and benefits using a rate of seven percent, in keeping

with "Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs" issued by

the Office of Management and Budget in 1992 (Circular No. A-94, Revised). This rate

approximates the marginal pretax rate of return on an average investment in the private sector in

recent years.

Projection of Future Shipments

As discussed in Chapter 3, the past growth in annual shipments of the considered motors

(including imported motors) is not known, but NEMA did provide confidential data on two-digit

frame-size, fractional-horsepower motor sales to domestic customers by NEMA manufacturers,

covering the period from 1971 to 2001 . After interpolating the data, the average annual growth

rate is 1.5 percent. Although the motors being analyzed make up only around 20 percent of the

motors covered by these data, industry experts suggest that growth in sales of the considered

motors is likely similar to that of all fractional motors because the demand for both considered

and non-considered fractional motors is closely tied to the general U.S. economy.

Several factors suggest that the growth in future sales may be slower than in the past. At a basic

level, U.S. economic growth is expected to be slightly slower than that in the 1970 -2000 period.

Second, continuation of the current trend toward greater use of definite -purpose small motors

would mean that sales of the general-purpose motors considered in this analysis would increase

more slowly. Finally, foreign manufacturers of end-use equipment incorporating considered

small motors may have lower production costs sufficient to gain market share at the expense of

U.S.-based manufacturers, which would reduce U.S . domestic demand for small motors.

Based on the above considerations, the Department estimated impacts for two scenarios of

average annual growth in shipments in the 2010-2030 period: one with one percent and the other

with 1. 5 percent.

Base Case Efficiencies

Apart from the problem of estimating future market behavior, the Department has only limited

knowledge regarding the past trend in efficiency because of insufficient data that are available.

The perspective of the NEMA/SMMA working group and other motor industry experts the

Department consulted is that the past 20-30 years have seen "very little to moderate"

improvement in efficiency. Some gains occurred in the 1970's as electricity prices rose, and there

36

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
has also been some spillover into small motors from efficiency improvement in integral

horsepower motors. A number of manufacturers have introduced "premium efficiency" small

polyphase motors. In the case of capacitor-start motors, there has been some growth in use of

more efficient capacitor-run models, which to some extent had lessened the need to improve the

more common induction-run models.

Current expectations for future commercial and industrial electricity prices show a slight

declining trend in the long run. While customer interest in efficiency of small motors may

continue to be limited, manufacturers may use performance (which includes efficiency) as a

selling point to gain advantage in a competitive market. In sum, it seems reasonable that a lowerbound case for future efficiency would envision very little improvement, while an upper-bound

case would envision moderate gains.

The Department expressed the above qualitative cases into actual numbers as follows: In the

Low Efficiency Improvement base case, the average efficiency of motors sold in the 2010-2030

period is `/ point better than the current base case motors (e.g., 62.25 percent compared to 62

percent). In the Moderate Efficiency Improvement base case, the average efficiency is one point

better than the current base case motors.

6.2 Estimates of Potential Energy and Consumer Impacts

Capacitor-Start Motors

For options with positive NPV, the cumulative energy savings, based on the LBNL analysis of

steel grade change, range from a low of 0.6 quad to a high of one quad (Figure 6-1). The

corresponding cumulative NPV range is $0.6 billion to just over $1 billion. None of the stack

change options have positive NPV.

Using the NEMA average data, the Department sees positive NPV only in a few instances

(Figure 6-2). In the most favorable case (Low Efficiency Improvement base case, High

Shipments Growth), there are savings of 0.6 quad with an NPV of just under $0.1 billion (plus 2

stack option).

Polyphase Motors

The LBNL analysis shows cumulative energy savings from steel grade change ranging from a

low of 0.15 quad to a high of 0.21 quad (Figure 6-3). The corresponding cumulative NPV range

is $0.09 billion to $0.27 billion. The stack change options generally do not show positive NPV.

Use of the NEMA average data for 1/2 horsepower motors would show lower savings than the

above.

37

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 6-1 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, LBNL Analysis

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

Grade B Grade M47 Plus Plusu- i 2 - Rt j 3

B+ Stack Stack Stack i

Moderate Eff. Improvement Base Case -

High Shipments Growth

Low Eff. Improvement Base Case -

---------- . _......___.........._...._.......__......__............_.__.._......_.....__...._.._..__...

Low Annual Shipments Growth

Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

NPV ($Billions)

M3 Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

-0- NPV ($Billions)

Low Eff. Improvement Base Case -

High Shipments Growth

Moderate Eff. Improvement Base Case -

Low ipments rowt

Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

-t7-NPV ($Billions)

Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

I I -0- NPV ($Billions)

38

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 6-2 Capacitor-Start Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts, NEMA Data

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

-0.20

-0.40

-0.60

-0.80

Low Eff. Improvement Base Case -

High Shipments Growth

Low Eff. Improvement Base Case -

Low Shipments Growth

Plus 3 1 Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

-0-NPV ($Billions)

Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

0- NPV ($Billions)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

-0.20

-0.40

-0.60

-0.80

0.80

0.60

0.40

_I 3

Grade 2 Gr8e 3 Plus PlbA Plus 3

Stack Staok^"Stacy

Moderate Eff. Improvement Base Case -

High Shipments Growth

Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

J- NPV ($Billions)

0.20

0.00

Grade 1Z Grade 3 Plats Plus 2 Plus 3

-0.20

-0.40

-0.60

-0.80

Moderate Eff. Improvement Base Case -

Low Shipments Growth

Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

-0- NPV ($Billions)

39

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Figure 6-3 Polyphase Motors, National Energy and Consumer Impacts , LBNL Analysis

0.40

0. 30

0. 20

0. 10

0.00 LiM Primary Energy

Grade M47 Plus Plus 2 Plus 3 Savings (Quads)

0 10 B+ Stack Stack Stack NPV Billi - . -0- ($ ons)

-0. 20

-0.30 JLow Eff. Improvement Base Case -

High Shipments Growth

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Grade M47

+

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30 ---

Low Eff. Improvement Base Case -

Low Shipments Growth

Plus Plus 3

3tack Stack -

k

- - - ---- - - --- - -------------- --------

0.40 1

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 EGad" I I 1 I I IL^^ Primary Energy

Savings (Quads)

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

Grade M47 Plus Plus 2 Plus 3

B+ Stack Stack Stack q-- NPV ($Billions)

Moderate Eff. Improvement Base Case -

High Shipments Growth

0.40

0 30 .

0. 20

0. 10

0 00 Primary Energy . L Primary Energy

Savings (Quads) Grade M47 Plus PI 13 Savings (Quads)

0 10 R+ St irk $t^rk Stark 0- NPV ($Billions) - .

-0- NPV ($ Billions)

-0.20

-0.30

Moderate Eff. Improvement Base Case -

Low Shipments Growth

40

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The most attractive design options for improving the energy efficiency of the considered small

motors involve changes in steel grade and stack length. The relative merits of one versus the

other vary among motor manufacturers.

The design options considered in this study have the energy savings potential shown below.

Differences in estimates of the efficiency and cost increase associated with the options and

uncertainty about future shipments and efficiency trends produce a range of estimates for

economic impacts.

Capacitor-start, induction-run motors. The analysis of design options conducted by LBNL shows

cumulative energy savings from steel grade changes, the more favorable design option in this

analysis, ranging from 0.6 to one quad (Table 7-1). The corresponding cumulative NPV range is

$0.4 billion to just over $1 billion.

Analysis based on average data provided by the NEMA/SMMA working group indicates lower

potential energy savings and economic benefits. The highest savings scenario, which in this case

refers to the stack change design option, shows energy savings of 0.6 quads with an NPV of 0.1

billion. In the scenario with least savings, the options all have negative NPV.

Table 7-1 Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency

Improvement for Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors Projected to be

Sold in the 2010-2030 Period*

Future Energy Savings (Quads) NPV (Year 2000 dollars in

billions, discounted at 7 percent)

Scenario LBNL NEMA/SMMA LBNL NEMA/SMMA

Low efficiency gain 0.85 0.6 0.9 0.1

base case, high

shipments growth

Moderate efficiency 1.0 0.2 1.05 0.05

gain base case, high

shipments growth

Low efficiency gain 0.7 0.25 0.65 0.05

base case, low

shipments growth

Moderate efficiency 0.6 0.1 0.4 -0.05

gain base case, low

shipments growth

* The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of

highest energy savings and most favorable consumer NPV.

41

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
The LBNL and NEMA/SMMA data are in reasonably close agreement with respect to the stack

change design option. For steel grade changes, however, the data are not in agreement. The

reasons for the differences between the LBNL and NEMA/SMMA data are somewhat uncertain,

as the NEMA/SMMA working group did not wish to share details of the calculations from the

four companies that submitted data.

Better resolution of the uncertainty would require both more information from the

NEMA/SMMA group and estimates of the market shares of the major manufacturers for the

considered motors. The former would help us evaluate the individual data submissions by the

companies, while the latter would allow us to better weight the data according to the market

share of each manufacturer.

Polyphase motors. The LBNL analysis shows cumulative energy savings from steel grade

changes ranging from a low of 0.15 quad to a high of 0.21 quad (Table 7-2). The corresponding

cumulative NPV range is from $0.09 billion to $0.27 billion. The stack change options do not

show positive NPV in most cases.

For polyphase motors, the Department did not make estimates of national impacts using the

NEMA/SMMA data, as the manufacturers' analysis was based on a 1 /2 horsepower motor

instead of the more typical one horsepower size. Furthermore, the manufacturers' analysis shows

some efficiency gains, but with an increase in life-cycle cost, which would lead to a negative

NPV.

Table 7-2 Cumulative Energy and Consumer Impacts of Energy Efficiency

Improvement for Polyphase Motors Projected to be Sold in the 2010-2030

Period*

Future Energy Savings (Quads) NPV (Year 2000 dollars in

billions, discounted at 7 percent)

Scenario LBNL NEMA/SMMA LBNL NEMA/SMMA

Low efficiency gain 0.21 Not 0.27 Not

base case, high Available Available

shipments growth

Moderate efficiency 0.18 Not 0.21 Not

gain base case, high Available Available

shipments growth

Low efficiency gain 0.2 Not 0.1 Not

base case, low Available Available

shipments growth

Moderate efficiency 0.17 Not 0.09 Not

gain base case, low Available Available

shipments growth

* The values given for each scenario correspond to the design option with the combination of

42

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
highest energy savings and most favorable consumer NPV.

APPENDIX A. INFORMATION COLLECTION PROCESS ON USE OF SMALL

MOTORS

Small motors are used in a variety of equipment . Easton Consultants identified 14 industrial

categories and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories and over 45

categories of equipment that use small motors as defined. These include such diverse types of

equipment as farm milking machines, industrial pumps, packaging machines, and machine tools.

The information collected for each category included the following three types:

Type 1 - Usage information

• Horsepower range,

• Average horsepower,

• Average hours of use,

• Qualitative information on specific applications (e.g. ambient conditions),

• Estimate of typical motor loading, and

• Other application specific information.

Type 2 - Motor selection information

• Information on motor purchasing practices and procedures by OEMs who use considered

motors in their products;

• The degree to which changes in motor size related to improved efficiency may be

incompatible with equipment designs used by OEMs;

• The degree to which motor efficiency is a significant consideration for OEMs; and

• Other selection related information.

Type 3 - Quantitative (shipments) information

• Annual shipments of each considered motor type (capacitor-start and polyphase) for each

category.

The Department used an information collection process that followed a sequence of steps moving

from general sources to specific as needed. The Department proceeded step-by-step for each of

the 14 categories as follows:

• Step 1 -In-house expertise. The Department started with our expertise on each of the

categories from past projects. The Department assembled this information as the starting

point.

• Step 2 --Industry associations. The Department contacted the association or associations

servicing each of the categories for general information on the industry, important players,

industry characteristics and trends, and motor use.

• Step 3 --Industry literature search . The Department conducted a review of the relevant

trade magazines and reports available publicly for relevant motor-related information on

motor selection and use.

• Step 4 --Company information review. The Department explored the information

all

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
available on one or two leading motor-using company web sites (particularly product

specifications), requesting specs from the sales department where not available on the web.

Step 5 --Expert assistance. The Department worked with a former director of market

research of a motor manufacturer who has extensive industry background to extend our

expertise.

Step 6 --Direct motor-using company informal discussion . After the above sources had

been fully utilized, the Department conducted a series of informal phone interviews with

equipment designers and engineers in each of the sectors. These were designed to collect

the specific information needed, and varied for each category depending on the specifics of

what was needed for that category. In these interviews the Department discussed:

® Types of motors used in the particular equipment to identify the approximate

proportion of all motors that are considered motors,

® Sizes of motors used,

• Typical hours of operation of the motors,

• Motor loading against its rated horsepower,

® Role of energy efficiency in the decision and the rationale,

® Health of the industry,

® Technical changes expected that would affect motor use,

® Typical life of the motor in this equipment's service, and

® Other related subjects.

as

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
APPENDIX B. METHOD FOR ESTIMATING CONSIDERED SMALL MOTORS

SHIPMENTS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

As part of the effort to support the LBNL project, "Development of Application Information for

General Purpose Small Electric Motors Considered for Efficiency Standards," Easton

Consultants conducted an analysis to estimate the shipments of considered small motors to each

of 14 industry segments.

There is no single source that provides a measurement of the shipments of considered motors in

the principal industries of use. As a result the Department had to rely on a variety of sources of

information, each one of which provided only a piece of the puzzle. By integrating all of those

available and then applying judgment, the Department has developed a reliable "first cut"

estimate. The cornerstone to the estimates was first-hand research with a number of

manufacturers of small motor-using equipment.

The data sources used included the following:

1. Discussion with four to ten equipment OEMs (product designers, engineers) in each of the

small-motor using equipment industries.

2. Survey of the small motors manufacturers conducted by NEMA to measure the total

shipments of considered motors.

3. The Census of Manufacturers (1997), which measures equipment shipments and certain

component usage by each of the principal small motor using industries.

4. Industry associations that cover the principal small motor using industries.

5. Catalogs of equipment using small motors.

6. Expert counsel from an individual who was formerly a market research manager with a

leading motor manufacturer.

7. Past Easton projects on small motor use, particularly the 1995 project conducted for LBNL.

In the following chart the Department has defined the role of each source of information in

making the estimates.

11 1;

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Information Description Principal Value Limitations Importance

Source of Source

OEM Discussions First hand inputs The sample of OEMs Very High

Interviews with from engineers and was necessarily a

manufacturers designers who small sample of the

of small motor make the motor many companies using

using selection decisions small motors.

equipment in the user

industries

NEMA Survey Survey of Provided a reliable Did not provide any High

principal measure of the total information on the

small motors number of equipment in which

manufacturers considered small the motors are used

motor shipments by

size and type

Census of Survey of U.S. (1) Shipments of Difficult in most cases Low

Manufacturers Manufacturers motor using to match equipment

(1997) equipment defmitions with motor

type

(2) Shipments of Data given for all High

small motors to shipments; considered

each industry motors not broken out.

Industry Organizations Information on Most information Low

Associations supporting sector structure could not be tied

industrial (e.g. major directly to motor use

sectors companies), trends,

economic health,

Equipment Equipment Often explicit as to Most catalogs do not Low

catalogs descriptions the type and size of provide motor use

for sales motors used information; only a

purposes few were useful

Expert counsel Review by an "Reality check" on Motor manufacturers Medium

experienced estimates do not have good

market information on where

research head small motors are used

formerly with

a motor

manufacturer

Past Easton Easton files A variety of Information generally Medium

Reports on small information, esp. dated

motor use from the 1995

from past report on small

projects motors

ar,

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
APPENDIX C. SMALL MOTORS DISCOUNT RATE CALCULATIONS

A list of companies was chosen to represent buyers of considered small motors. The cost of debt,

cost of equity, debt share, equity share and beta (market risk) value for these companies was

obtained from the Damodaran web site financial data base (Table C-1).' These data were then

used to calculate the weighted average cost of capital for each company. The weighted average

cost of capital of companies is a common measure of the discount rate appropriate for evaluating

typical company investments.

The weighted average cost of capital for the list of representative companies ranges from 4

percent to 11 percent (Figure 1). The average cost of capital, after deducting for expected

inflation, is 6.0 percent. The standard deviation of the cost of capital is 1.4 percent.

Figure 1. Distribution of Discount Rates for the Small Motors Analysis

40%

35%

30%

10%

5%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Discount Rate (WACC Measure)

The sample of companies included for this analysis included heavy manufacturing (43 percent),

large commercial (retail, grocery and real estate) (40 percent) and water agency and agricultural

companies (17 percent).

'Aswath Damodaran web site. This site is hosted at New York University Stern Business School. The

site includes a data base with financial information covering over 7,000 companies representing different

economic sectors of the economy. http://www.stem.nyu.edu/-adamodar/New Home Page/data.html

a'7

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1
Table C-1. Cost of Capital of Representative Firms Purchasing Small Motors

Company Beta Cost Equity Cost Debt WACC-no

Company Name Industry Name (1) (2) We (3) (4) Wd (5) WACC (6) inflation (7)

Manufacturing Firms

Ivanhoe Energy Inc Petroleum (Producing) 0.7 9.35% 100% 9.00% 0.22% 9.35% 6.9%

Caledonia Mining Corpor Metals & Mining (Div.) 0.35 7.43% 100% 9.00% 0.00% 7.43% 5.0%

Kaiser Alum. Metals & Mining (Div.) 0.95 10.73% 110/0 8.00% 88.52% &31% 5.9%

Coeur d'Alene Mines Gold/Silver Mining 0.50 8.25% 15% 9.00% 84.76% 8.89% 6.4%

Hecla Mining Gold/Silver Mining 0.40 7,70% 51% 9.00% 49.01% 8.34% 5.9%

Brigham Exploration Co Petroleum (Producing) 1.00 11.00% 36% 9.00% 63.76% 9.72% 7.3%

Enbridge Inc. Petroleum (Producing) 0.55 8.53% 52% 6.00% 48.13% 7.31% 4.9%

Exploration Co Petroleum (Producing) 0.80 9.90% 97% 9.00% 3.18% 9.87% 7.4%

Intrawest Corporation Homebuilding 0.75 9.63% 53% 5.72% 46.61% 7.81% 5.4%

ConAgra Foods Food Processing 0.70 9.35% 65% 4.02% 34.73% 7.50% 5.1%

Kellogg Food Processing 0.60 8.80% 86% 4.44% 14.50% 8.17% 5.7%

Boise Cascade Paper & Forest Product 1.20 12.10% 50% 3.55% 49.92% 7.83% 5.4%

Louisiana-Pacific Paper & Forest Product 1.00 11.00% 41% 4.89% 59.26% 7.38% 5.0%

Dow Chemical Chemical (Basic) 1.00 11.00% 83% 4.27% 17.47% 9.82% 7.4%

ChemFirst Inc. Chemical (Diversified) 0.80 9.90% 87% 3.91% 12.83% 9.13% 6.7%

Goodyear Tire Tire & Rubber 1.15 11.83% 52% 5.33% 48.31% 8.69% 6.2%

Bayou Steel Steel (General) 0.75 9.63% 4% 7,00% 96.28% 7.10% 4.7%

Thomas & Betts Electrical Equipment 1.10 11.55% 64% 7.00% 35.54% 9.93% 7.5%

Overseas Shipholding Maritime 0.80 9.90% 48% 4.53% 51.95% 7.11% 4.7%

Northwest Airlines 'A' Air Transport 1.35 12.93% 26% 4.71% 74.14% 6.83% 4.4%

Commercial Firms

Costco Wholesale Retail Store 1.30 12.65% 95% 4.20% 5.03% 12.22% 9.7%

Kmart Corp. Retail Store 1.15 11.83% 46% 5.35% 54.47% 8.30% 5.9%

Neiman Marcus Retail Store 1.25 12.38% 86% 4.34% 14.47% 11.21% 8.7%

Penney (J.C.) Retail Store 1.10 11.55% 55% 5.47% 45.28% 8.80% 6.4%

Target Corp. Retail Store 1.30 12.65% 84% 4.00% 15.75% 11.29% 8.8%

Wal-Mart Stores Retail Store 1.15 11.83% 92% 4.13% 7.93% 11.21% 8.7%

Toys 'R' Us Retail (Special Lines) 1.20 12.10% 71% 5.70% 29.29% 10.23% 7.7%

Safeway Inc. Grocery 0.75 9.63% 76% 3.80% 23.68% &25% 5.8%

Smart & Final Grocery 0.80 9.90% 69% 4.00% 31.21% 8.06% 5.6%

Village Super Market 'A' Grocery 0.55 8.53% 61% 4.01% 38.84% 6.77% 4.4%

Whole Foods Market Grocery 1.10 11.55% 89% 4.43% 11.40% 10.74% 8.2%

Winn-Dixie Stores Grocery 0.75 9.63% 73% 4.92% 26.82% 8.36% 5.9%

Security Cap Group Inc R.E.I.T. 0.50 8.25% 99% 4.72% 0.98% 8.22% 5.8%

Rouse Co. R.E.I.T. 0.65 9.08% 39% 5.96% 60.94% 7.18% 4.8%

Bedford Ppty Invs R.E.I.T. 0.55 8.53% 56% 5.75% 44.19% 7.30% 4.9%

HMG Courtland Prop R.E.I.T. 0.40 7.70% 44% 8.00% 56.21% 7.87% 5.4%

Health Care Property R. E.I.T. 0.55 8.53% 61% 5.75% 38.89% 7.45% 5.0%

Bedford Ppty Invs R. E.I.T. 0.55 8.53% 56% 5.75% 44.19% 7.30% 4.9%

Catellus Development R. E.I.T. 0.90 10.45% 62% 3.58% 38.40% 7.81% 5.4%

Agricultural Firms

ML Macadamia Orchards LI Food Processing 0.6 8.80% 82% 6.25% 17.59% 8.35% 5.9%

Sylvan Inc. Food Processing 0.5 8.25% 61% 5.04% 39.05% 7.00% 4.6%

Tejon Ranch Co. Food Processing 0.8 9.90% 89% 6.50% 11.33% 9.51% 7.1%

Chiquita Brands Int'l Food Processing 0.4 7.70% 3% 9.00% 96.66% 8.96% 6.5%

Water Utilities

Amer. Water Works Water Utility 0.5 8.25% 60% 3.93% 40.49% 6.50% 4.1%

California Water Water Utility 0.6 8.80% 66% 3.61% 34.43% 7.01% 4.6%

Middlesex Water Water Utility 0.45 7.98% 66% 4.18% 33.51% 6.70% 4.3%

Southwest Water Water Utility 0.45 7.98% 72% 4.09% 28.20% 6.88% 4.5%

(Group Averages 0.79 9.9% 62.4% 5.6% 37.6% 8.4% 6.0%

Source:

1. Damodaran data base. Covariance between company return and stock market return.

2. Risk free bond rate (5.5%) plus company beta times the expected return on common stocks minus the risk free bond rate (5.5%).

3. Damodaran data base. Proportion of equity in company financial position.

4. Damodaran data base. After tax interest paid on debt.

5. Damodaran data base. Proportion of debt in company financial position.

6. WACC. Cost of equity times the proportion of equity (We) plus the cost of debt times the proportion of debt (Wd).

7. Inflation rate is 2.3%.

AR

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 02.1