BUILDING TECHNOLOGIE

May 28, 2014

ASRAC Pumps Working Group Webinar Meeting

LCC, Shipments, and NIA
2

Overview• LCC – Impacts to Individual Consumers

– Review updated inputs (including for VT‐S)

– Review updated results for ESCC, ESFM, and IL and new res

– Results now provided by size ranges

• Shipments Model

– Review assumptions

– Present projections

• NIA – Impacts to Nation

– Review methodology

– Present results

• National Energy Savings (NES)

• National Net Present Value (NPV)
3

NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule
4

• Revised distribution channels to account for new channel

– Assigned 80% of Pump OEM  Distributor  End User channel to the ne

represent the new market (as opposed to replacement market)

Updated Inputs: Markups Analysis

Channel: From Manufacturer

Previous Share

of Shipments

New sh

Shipm

Pump OEM to Distributor to End User 87% 17%

Pump OEM to Distributor toContractor to End User 0% 70%

Pump OEM to OEM to End User 8% 8%

Pump OEM to End User 2% 2%

Pump OEM to Contractor to End User 1% 1%

Previous Markup New M

Baseline 1.50 1.5Incremental 1.24 1.3
5

Updated Inputs: Energy Use Load Profiles

Previous Wts New Wts

LP0 25% 30%

LP1 25% 30%LP2 25% 30%LP3 25% 10%

• Revised LP3 weight to make overloading less prevalent
6

Updated Inputs: Annual Operating Hours

• Revised operating hours in “other” sector

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 

Cooling Water 2500 3500 5000 6000 

Boiler Feed 2000 3000 4000 5000 

Circulation 2000 3000 4000 5000 Pressure Boost 300 600 1000 2500 Irrigation 300 600 1000 1500 Other 600 940 1500 3300 Revised Other 1000 1500 2000 3000 
7

Updated Inputs: Lifetime

Product Class

Average Mechanical

Lifetime

Average No. Repair

Cycles Average Lifetime

ESCC,1800 31002 0.0 13.9ESCC,3600 19989 0.0 9.2

ESFM,1800 46874 2.6 21.1ESFM,3600 40370 2.7 19.0

IL,1800 34039 0.8 15.4IL,3600 24702 0.9 11.7

VT‐S,3600 15929 0.0 10.3

0

500

1000150020002500

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
8

Updated Inputs: VT‐S Sector Weights• VT-S have less weight in commercial and more 

agricultural and municipal than other pump type

Sector ESCC ESFM IL VT‐S Total

Agriculture 10% 10% 10% 31% 12%

Commercial 51% 51% 51% 13% 47%

Industrial 33% 33% 33% 30% 33%

Municipal 6% 6% 6% 26% 8%
9

LCC Results: No Cost Recovery
10

Scenario 1: No Cost Recovery

• Base case cost curve only

• No conversion costs are passed on to consumers

• Affected consumers purchase pumps meeting the minimu

standard at prices equivalent to those already on the mar

400600800

10001200140016001800

110 115 120 125 130 135

MSP$

C‐value

Example – numbers not up to date
11

Average LCC Savings($)

Total Small HP

Medium HP Large HP
12

Average LCC Savings($)

Product Class PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC,1800 $ 54.79 $ 165.03 $ 272.66 $ 428.03 

Small $ 37.90 $ 83.18 $ 137.91 $ 208.82 

Medium $ 64.71 $ 327.16 $ 559.65 $ 858.66 

Large $ 427.96 $ 1,013.20 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,729.64 

ESCC,3600 $ 18.99 $ 83.35 $ 142.07 $ 208.59 

Small $ 2.62 $ 7.87 $ 19.75 $ 38.78 

Medium $ 91.37 $ 437.79 $ 690.99 $ 953.75 

Large $ 117.93 $ 371.10 $ 815.47 $ 1,280.82 

ESFM,1800 $ 47.04 $ 263.52 $ 508.86 $ 877.94 

Small $ 5.19 $ 30.16 $ 82.38 $ 170.26 

Medium $ 29.19 $ 393.20 $ 767.66 $ 1,305.34 

Large $ 539.17 $ 1,271.26 $ 2,185.49 $ 3,675.57 

ESFM,3600 $ 176.95 $ 506.74 $ 901.89 $ 1,215.04 

Small $ 0.41 $ 29.43 $ 100.46 $ 159.73 

Medium $ 135.12 $ 560.77 $ 1,047.66 $ 1,449.57 

Large $ 1,181.99 $ 2,252.98 $ 3,514.02 $ 4,407.23 

IL,1800 $ 43.66 $ 165.58 $ 298.28 $ 469.08 

Small $ 51.71 $ 116.14 $ 169.86 $ 217.58 

Medium $ 16.90 $ 187.08 $ 390.86 $ 794.48 

Large $ 3.15 $ 1,429.25 $ 3,319.38 $ 5,362.56 

IL,3600 $ 384.05 $ 554.16 $ 702.65 $ 791.45 

Small $ 349.18 $ 467.34 $ 554.65 $ 603.95 

Medium $ 493.52 $ 755.07 $ 1,053.88 $ 1,217.71 

Large $ 2.08 $ 1,741.61 $ 2,464.57 $ 3,582.83 

VT‐S,3600 $ 2.08 $ 15.07 $ 109.69 $ 191.30 

Small $ 0.50 $ 10.97 $ 93.38 $ 155.38 

Medium $ 11.56 $ 39.63 $ 207.59 $ 406.82 

Grand Total $ 103.96 $ 250.51 $ 419.45 $ 597.34 
13

Change in Operating Cost (>0) & Purchase Price (<

Total Small HP

Medium HP Large HP
14

Operating Cost Savings vs. Purchase Price Chan

PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 55 

Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op 

ESCC,1800 64 ‐9 201 ‐36 309 ‐36 464 ‐36 

Small 48 ‐11 120 ‐37 175 ‐37 246 ‐37 

Medium 68 ‐3 360 ‐33 593 ‐33 892 ‐33 

Large 438 ‐10 1042 ‐29 1529 ‐29 2758 ‐29 4

ESCC,3600 21 ‐2 92 ‐9 151 ‐9 217 ‐9 

Small 3 0 9 ‐1 21 ‐1 40 ‐1 

Medium 100 ‐9 485 ‐47 738 ‐47 1001 ‐47 

Large 120 ‐2 383 ‐12 827 ‐12 1293 ‐12 2

ESFM,1800 49 ‐2 287 ‐24 533 ‐24 902 ‐24 1

Small 6 ‐1 40 ‐10 92 ‐10 180 ‐10 

Medium 32 ‐3 432 ‐39 806 ‐39 1344 ‐39 

Large 549 ‐10 1301 ‐30 2215 ‐30 3706 ‐30 6

ESFM,3600 181 ‐4 531 ‐24 926 ‐24 1239 ‐24 2

Small 1 0 33 ‐4 104 ‐4 163 ‐4 

Medium 141 ‐6 597 ‐36 1084 ‐36 1486 ‐36 2

Large 1197 ‐15 2296 ‐43 3557 ‐43 4450 ‐43 7

IL,1800 60 ‐17 214 ‐49 347 ‐49 518 ‐49 

Small 72 ‐20 171 ‐55 224 ‐55 272 ‐55 

Medium 22 ‐5 213 ‐26 417 ‐26 820 ‐26 

Large 4 0 1476 ‐46 3366 ‐46 5409 ‐46 7

IL,3600 409 ‐25 611 ‐57 759 ‐57 848 ‐57 1

Small 380 ‐31 536 ‐68 623 ‐68 672 ‐68 

Medium 504 ‐10 781 ‐26 1079 ‐26 1243 ‐26 

Large 6 ‐4 1777 ‐35 2500 ‐35 3618 ‐35 6

VT‐S,3600 3 ‐1 27 ‐12 121 ‐12 203 ‐12 

Small 1 0 23 ‐12 106 ‐12 168 ‐12 

Medium 15 ‐3 48 ‐9 216 ‐9 415 ‐9 
15

Winners / Losers / No Impact (ESCC 1800)

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

Small HP

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 PER70

Total

LosersNo ImpactWinners

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 PER70

Medium HP

LosersNo ImpactWinners

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

Large HP
16

Winners / Losers / No Impact

Pump Type W/L/U PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC,1800 Winners 16 28 46 57 ESCC,1800 Losers 1 3 1 1 ESCC,1800 No Impact 83 69 52 42 

ESCC,3600 Winners 3 9 23 27 ESCC,3600 Losers 2 0 0 0 ESCC,3600 No Impact 96 91 77 73 

ESFM,1800 Winners 6 25 46 65 ESFM,1800 Losers 0 1 0 0 ESFM,1800 No Impact 94 74 54 35 ESFM,3600 Winners 13 26 43 50 ESFM,3600 Losers 0 0 0 0 ESFM,3600 No Impact 87 74 57 50 

IL,1800 Winners 13 28 40 52 IL,1800 Losers 2 3 2 1 IL,1800 No Impact 85 69 59 47 IL,3600 Winners 26 43 49 53 IL,3600 Losers 0 1 0 0 IL,3600 No Impact 73 56 50 47 

VT‐S,3600 Winners 1 28 47 52 VT‐S,3600 Losers 1 12 0 0 VT‐S,3600 No Impact 98 60 53 48 
17

Payback Period (Median)

Product Class PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC,1800 3.0 2.8 0.7 0.2 ESCC,3600 3.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 

ESFM,1800 1.7 2.1 0.2 0.0 ESFM,3600 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.0 

IL,1800 3.4 2.9 1.4 0.5 IL,3600 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.6 

VT‐S,3600 5.8 4.8 0.7 0.4 

Product Class PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC 1800 1Small 3.2 3.5 1.1 0.4 

ESCC 1800 2Medium 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.1 

ESCC 1800 3Large 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 ESCC 3600 1Small 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 

ESCC 3600 2Medium 4.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 

ESCC 3600 3Large 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 

ESFM 1800 1Small 3.0 4.4 0.6 0.0 

ESFM 1800 2Medium 1.6 1.3 0.2 0.0 

ESFM 1800 3Large 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 ESFM 3600 1Small 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 

ESFM 3600 2Medium 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.1 

ESFM 3600 3Large 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 

IL 1800 1Small 3.5 3.3 2.1 1.3 

IL 1800 2Medium 2.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 

IL 1800 3Large 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 

IL 3600 1Small 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.8 

IL 3600 2Medium 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 

IL 3600 3Large 5.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 

VT‐S 3600 1Small 5.7 4.9 0.7 0.4 

VT‐S 3600 2Medium 9.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 
18

LCC Results: Full Cost Recovery
19

Scenario 2: Full Cost Recovery

• Affected consumers purchase a redesigned version of their prev

• For costs to be recovered, they must be reflected in the prices o

pumps

– Increased price used in this LCC scenario based on an annuity that crea

INPV over the analysis period

400600800

10001200140016001800

110 115 120 125 130 135

MSP$

C‐value

Example – numbers not up to date
20

Average LCC Savings($)

Total Small HP

Medium HP Large HP
21

Average LCC Savings($)

Product Class PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC,1800 $ 44.00 $ 144.62 $ 203.64 $ 267.48 

Small $ 23.65 $ 68.02 $ 73.07 $ 71.96 

Medium $ 64.30 $ 288.08 $ 479.30 $ 652.09 

Large $ 423.34 $ 1,008.06 $ 1,413.39 $ 2,315.91 

ESCC,3600 $ 16.15 $ 77.67 $ 109.91 $ 146.88 

Small $ 2.49 $ 6.64 $ (4.71) $ (3.86) 

Medium $ 74.39 $ 414.39 $ 623.09 $ 820.21 

Large $ 116.47 $ 322.28 $ 750.34 $ 1,002.12 

ESFM,1800 $ 40.62 $ 228.27 $ 400.83 $ 630.04 

Small $ 3.50 $ 5.17 $ 31.51 $ (2.58) 

Medium $ 17.74 $ 342.60 $ 606.52 $ 1,007.08 

Large $ 530.47 $ 1,264.72 $ 1,992.25 $ 3,169.06 

ESFM,3600 $ 166.25 $ 488.91 $ 841.72 $ 1,093.07 

Small $ 0.43 $ 13.50 $ 63.26 $ 97.11 

Medium $ 116.56 $ 541.99 $ 970.66 $ 1,287.81 

Large $ 1,170.68 $ 2,232.50 $ 3,452.50 $ 4,260.36 

IL,1800 $ 45.78 $ 153.81 $ 204.59 $ 231.90 

Small $ 56.35 $ 111.01 $ 115.95 $ 65.21 

Medium $ 9.30 $ 165.75 $ 195.06 $ 322.58 

Large $ 1.90 $ 1,295.04 $ 2,811.63 $ 4,363.20 

IL,3600 $ 390.73 $ 552.89 $ 652.83 $ 670.58 

Small $ 357.26 $ 477.00 $ 516.23 $ 501.15 

Medium $ 497.32 $ 723.79 $ 972.03 $ 1,057.24 

Large $ (21.31) $ 1,730.39 $ 2,427.55 $ 3,148.18 

VT‐S,3600 $ (2.33) $ 7.02 $ 81.15 $ 123.54 

Small $ (1.72) $ 2.51 $ 66.77 $ 93.52 

Medium $ (5.95) $ 34.09 $ 167.41 $ 303.66 

Grand Total $ 100.20 $ 236.19 $ 356.39 $ 451.93 
22

Change in Operating Cost (>0) & Purchase Price (<

Total Small HP

Medium HP Large HP
23

Operating Cost Savings vs. Purchase Price Chan

PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 55 PE

Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op Cost Δ Price Δ Op Co

ESCC,1800 64 ‐20 201 ‐56 309 ‐105 464 ‐196 64

Small 48 ‐25 120 ‐52 175 ‐102 246 ‐174 3

Medium 68 ‐4 360 ‐72 593 ‐113 892 ‐239 127

Large 438 ‐14 1042 ‐34 1529 ‐115 2758 ‐443 433

ESCC,3600 21 ‐5 92 ‐15 151 ‐41 217 ‐71 34

Small 3 ‐1 9 ‐3 21 ‐26 40 ‐44 7

Medium 100 ‐26 485 ‐71 738 ‐115 1001 ‐181 145

Large 120 ‐4 383 ‐61 827 ‐77 1293 ‐291 28

ESFM,1800 49 ‐9 287 ‐59 533 ‐132 902 ‐272 136

Small 6 ‐3 40 ‐35 92 ‐61 180 ‐182 30

Medium 32 ‐14 432 ‐89 806 ‐200 1344 ‐337 194

Large 549 ‐18 1301 ‐36 2215 ‐223 3706 ‐536 60

ESFM,3600 181 ‐15 531 ‐42 926 ‐84 1239 ‐146 203

Small 1 0 33 ‐20 104 ‐41 163 ‐66 28

Medium 141 ‐24 597 ‐55 1084 ‐113 1486 ‐198 244

Large 1197 ‐26 2296 ‐63 3557 ‐104 4450 ‐189 726

IL,1800 60 ‐15 214 ‐61 347 ‐142 518 ‐286 73

Small 72 ‐15 171 ‐60 224 ‐108 272 ‐207 33

Medium 22 ‐13 213 ‐47 417 ‐222 820 ‐498 133

Large 4 ‐2 1476 ‐181 3366 ‐554 5409 ‐1046 78

IL,3600 409 ‐19 611 ‐58 759 ‐107 848 ‐178 106

Small 380 ‐23 536 ‐59 623 ‐107 672 ‐171 75

Medium 504 ‐7 781 ‐57 1079 ‐107 1243 ‐186 176

Large 6 ‐27 1777 ‐47 2500 ‐72 3618 ‐470 608

VT‐S,3600 3 ‐5 27 ‐20 121 ‐40 203 ‐79 26

Small 1 ‐3 23 ‐21 106 ‐39 168 ‐74 20

Medium 15 ‐21 48 ‐14 216 ‐49 415 ‐112 57
24

Winners / Losers / No Impact

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 PER70

Total

LosersNo ImpactWinners

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

Small HP

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 PER70

Medium HP

LosersNo ImpactWinners

0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

Large HP
25

Winners / Losers / No Impact

Pump Type W/L/U PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC,1800 Winners 7 22 28 32 

ESCC,1800 Losers 10 9 20 25 

ESCC,1800 No Impact 83 69 52 42 

ESCC,3600 Winners 2 8 11 13 ESCC,3600 Losers 2 1 13 14 ESCC,3600 No Impact 96 91 77 73 

ESFM,1800 Winners 3 17 28 38 ESFM,1800 Losers 3 9 18 27 ESFM,1800 No Impact 94 74 54 35 ESFM,3600 Winners 10 22 35 43 ESFM,3600 Losers 3 4 8 7 ESFM,3600 No Impact 87 74 57 50 

IL,1800 Winners 13 25 28 29 

IL,1800 Losers 2 6 14 24 IL,1800 No Impact 85 69 59 47 IL,3600 Winners 26 38 43 43 IL,3600 Losers 0 5 7 11 IL,3600 No Impact 73 56 50 47 

VT‐S,3600 Winners 0 16 41 42 VT‐S,3600 Losers 2 24 6 10 

VT‐S,3600 No Impact 98 60 53 48 
26

Payback Period (Median)

Product Class PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC,1800 11.5 5.2 7.3 8.2 ESCC,3600 38.7 1.5 8.8 6.1 

ESFM,1800 10.3 5.8 7.9 8.9 ESFM,3600 4.1 1.7 2.2 2.6 

IL,1800 2.7 3.9 6.1 9.2 IL,3600 0.6 1.4 1.9 2.9 

VT‐S,3600 40.3 9.1 2.9 3.7 

Product Class PER10 PER25 PER40 PER55 

ESCC 1800 1Small 12.0 6.3 9.6 10.1 

ESCC 1800 2Medium 0.7 2.6 2.5 3.7 

ESCC 1800 3Large 0.3 0.3 2.3 3.7 ESCC 3600 1Small 1.1 3.4 20.9 11.8 

ESCC 3600 2Medium 55.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 

ESCC 3600 3Large 0.3 2.6 0.9 9.6 

ESFM 1800 1Small 10.5 32.0 13.1 20.6 

ESFM 1800 2Medium 11.4 3.3 5.7 4.5 

ESFM 1800 3Large 0.5 0.4 4.2 4.6 ESFM 3600 1Small 2.0 11.9 7.1 6.7 

ESFM 3600 2Medium 4.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 

ESFM 3600 3Large 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 

IL 1800 1Small 2.5 4.1 5.6 10.0 

IL 1800 2Medium 6.6 2.4 11.2 9.1 

IL 1800 3Large 5.8 1.5 2.9 3.0 

IL 3600 1Small 0.6 1.2 2.1 3.1 

IL 3600 2Medium 0.1 2.8 1.7 2.3 

IL 3600 3Large 38.2 0.2 0.2 2.7 

VT‐S 3600 1Small 36.6 9.0 2.9 3.7 

VT‐S 3600 2Medium 196.4 86.9 2.8 3.0 
27

NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule
28

Shipments Analysis

• Purpose

• To estimate commercial and industrial pump shipments in the 

and standards cases.

• Method

• The shipments model relies on four main sources:

‒ Current shipments data (HI);

‒ Commercial floor space projections (AEO 2014);

‒ Value of manufacturing and agricultural shipments (AEO 20

‒ Population (AEO 2014).

• Shipments project driven by growth in these areas.
29

Shipments Analysis: Base Data

• As discussed previously, it is difficult to use 

existing sources of market data to identify pumps relevant to this rulemaking.

• DOE used the DOE/HI Manufacturers 

Survey for Fiscal Year 2012 (compiled March 21, 2014) as the base year shipments for the analysis.

• DOE notes that the historical census data 

shows quantity of imported centrifugal nonsubmersible pumps ranging from 9 million to 16 million per year from 2000-2010. 

• A market consultant estimated that a large 

fraction of these imports would be ESCC and IL. 

• While many of these would be under the 

1HP limit, it seems reasonable that many would not be.

EquipmentCategory

RS‐V VT‐S ESCC ESFM IL TOTAL 

Are imported pthe scope of thfully accountetotal industry sestimates?
30

Shipments Analysis: Motors Approach

• The medium electric motors rule 

used a shipments model driven by private fixed investments in selected equipment.

0

20406080

100120140160180

Index 2001=100

ShipmentsIndexPrivate Fixed Investment Index in Selected Equ

• DOE tried this approach for pumps using data on historical US 

production (shipments) for the relevant equipment classes from Census Bureau.

• DOE was unable to obtain a historical fit as good as that for the 

especially when selecting equipment that seemed appropriate

• The best fit was with private fixed investment in residential equ• DOE believes that the historical data provided in the US Census 

representative of commercial and industrial pumps
31

Shipments Analysis: Motors Approach

• DOE ran a projection based on private fixed investment in all equipment.

• Shipments index vs. Private fixed investment index:

Shipmentsindex (y) = 1.2427∙FixInvestindex (y) – 19.80349

• Shipments projections (in units) based on private fixed investment projectio

– 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (2019 – 2040),

– Extrapolations (2040 – 2048).

‐20

3080

130180

Index 2000=100

Shipments Index

y = 

0

20406080

100120

Shipments 60 70 80 Index 2000=100

Private Fixed Investment Index 

2000=100)
32

• The resulting shipments projections show a tripling of shipments over the analy

• As a result of the uncertainty regarding whether the historical shipments data a

representative of the commercial and industrial pumps market, and the relative

resulting growth projections (compared to historical trends), DOE looked at alte

shipments methodology.

Shipments Analysis: Motors Approach

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

Shipments (1,000)

Historical Reference Case High Economic Growth Case Low Economic Gr
33

Shipments Analysis: Alternate Approach• Instead of relying on historical data trends that may not b

related to the equipment in scope, DOE started with the 

shipments provided by HI and projected forward using va

indicators/projections in AEO 2014:

‒ Commercial sector: commercial floor space

‒ Industrial sector: value of manufacturing shipments

‒ Agricultural sector: value of agriculture, mining, and constr

shipments

‒ Municipal sector: population

Sector % FY Commercial 47% Industrial 33% Agricultural 12% Municipal 8% 

TOTAL 100% 

• For the initial year (2012), DOE

distributed total shipments into

sectors using estimates from the

LCC

‒ The distribution of sectors changes

over time as a result of each

sector’s projection
34

Shipments Analysis: Alternate Approach

0

100200300400500600700800

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 20

Shipments (1000s)

Year

Total Commercial Industrial Agricultural Total 2041‐2048 Commercial 2041‐2048 Industrial 2041‐2048 Agricultural 2041‐2048 

• The resulting shipments projection , which was used in the NIA results that will 

presented today, shows less than a doubling of shipments over the analysis peri

Does the industry have any input on which shipments projectiomore realistic? 
35

Shipments Analysis: Equipment Class Breakdow

• DOE used the FY12 total industry shipments by equipment cl

estimated by HI to distribute total shipments in each year into 

equipment types.

• This fraction remains constant over time.• Some equipment classes (VT-S) have different sector we

DOE could use these and their corresponding projections the distribution of shipments by equipment class over tim

• DOE used the FY12 data collected from manufacturers to dis

shipments into speeds (1800 vs 3600) and HP ranges.

• These fractions remain constant over time.

Would the fraction of shipments allotted to each equipment class to change over time?
36

Shipments Analysis: Standards Impacts on Ship

• Increased pump prices could affect the repair vs. replace decis

user makes and could lead to increasing the longevity of less epumps and decreased shipments. 

• No data to quantitatively estimate the impact of increased pum

(from higher efficiency standard levels) on shipments.

• Used a price elasticity equal to zero as a default. 
37

Shipments Analysis: Results

Equipment Class 

Grouping

Annual Shipments 

thousand units

2019 2025 2035 2048 C

o

ESCC 199 217 245 287 ESFM 51 56 63 74 IL 58 54 72 84 RS-V 58 63 72 84 VT-S 121 132 149 174 TOTAL 487 532 602 702 
38

NOPR Rulemaking Stage

Market & Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End Use LoadCharacterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NationalImpactAnalysis

Markups forEquipmentPriceDetermination

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Framework 

Document

Preliminary

Analysis

NOPR Final Rule
39

National Impact Analysis

• Purpose

• For equipment shipped from 2019 to 2048:

– To estimate the National Energy Savings (NES) from new and ame

conservation standards at different efficiency levels.

– To estimate the national economic impact for commercial and in

users (or the Net Present Value (NPV)) from energy conservation different efficiency levels.

• Method

• DOE calculates national energy savings by multiplying unit lifet

savings by projected shipments and accumulating this projecte

the 30 years.

• DOE calculates the NPV by accumulating the difference each ye

energy bill savings and increased equipment expenditures for a

shipped over the 30 year period.
40

National Energy Savings Flow Diagram

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2048

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2021

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2020

Base Case

Lifetime Energy

Consumption

2019

Shipments

Analysis

StanCas

Base-Case Projection

Base Case

Annual Energ

Consumptio

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2021

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2020

Standards Case

Lifetime Energy

Consumption

2019

Base-Case

Cumulative

Energy Use

Standards-Case 

Cumulative

Energy Use

Site to FFC

Energy

Conversion

National Energy

Savings
41

National Consumer Net Present Value Flow Dia

Shipments

Analysis

StandarCase Pr

Energy

Cost

(2019 –

2048)

Base-Case 

Projection

Cumulative

Energy Cost 

Savings

Cumulative

Non Energy

Cost Increase

Discount 

Rate

Net Present

Value

Rep, Maint,

Cost

(2019 –

2048)

Total Install 

Cost

(2019 –

2048)

Energy

Cost

(2019 –

2048)

Rep, Maint,

Cost

(2019 –

2048)

T
42

National Impact Analysis Inputs

Total Installed Cost Based on the engineering outputs and depending on the efficiency lev

Installation cost not included as it is not expected to vary by efficienc

Repair and Maintenance Costs

Assumed constant repair and constant maintenance costs across effitherefore not included in this analysis.

Annual Energy Use Annual average values per equipment class and efficiency level calcu

inputs from the Energy Use Characterization/LCC

Base-Case Efficiencies

Shipments-weighted efficiencies based on base case efficiency distribpresented in the LCC analysis.Frozen at 2012 and constant across the analysis period.

Standards-Case Projected Efficiencies

Roll-up scenario assumed for determining shipment-weighted efficienstandards case.Frozen at 2012 and constant across the analysis period.

Energy Prices Average prices and projected energy prices from EIA AEO2014 foreca

extrapolation to 2048. 

Electricity Conversion Factors

Using an estimate for now; will update later to conversion factors bascorresponding to AEO 2014.

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis GuidelinPresent Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2014.

National Impact Analysis
43

National Impact Analysis: Trial Standard Levels

TSL Equipment Class Group Formulation C

ESCC ESFM IL RS-V VT-S

1 PER 10 PER 10 PER 10 PER 10 PER 102 PER 25 PER 25 PER 25 PER 25 PER 253 PER 40 PER 40 PER 40 PER 40 PER 404 PER 55 PER 55 PER 55 PER 55 PER 555 PER 70 PER 70 PER 70 PER 70 PER 70

• The NIA generally considers Trial Standard Levels (TSL

which are combination of efficiency levels

• For this analysis, we assumed that each TSL consists o

identical efficiency level for each equipment class

• The working group may wish to select different comb

of efficiency levels to examine together
44

National Impact Analysis

• Cumulative National Energy Savings – Estimated Prim

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TS

ESCC 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.ESFM 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.IL 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.RS-V N/A N/A N/A NVT-S 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.TOTAL 0.02 0.10 0.24 0.
45

National Impact Analysis

• Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit, Discounted a

(billion 2013$)

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TS

ESCC 0.02 0.17 0.31 0.ESFM 0.01 0.12 0.31 0.IL 0.05 0.12 0.20 0.RS-V N/A N/A N/A NVT-S 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.TOTAL 0.08 0.43 0.99 1
46

National Impact Analysis

• Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit, Discounted a

• (billion 2013$)

Equipment Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TS

ESCC 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.ESFM 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.IL 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.RS-V N/A N/A N/A NVT-S 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.TOTAL 0.03 0.17 0.37 0.
47

National Impact Analysis: Refinements• Base case and standards case efficiency projection

– Historical data to identify efficiency trends over time?

– Could use trends from motors rulemaking?

• Based on market penetration of NEMA Premium motors with

market for integral alternating current induction motors

• Impeller trimming

– What % of shipments are trimmed?

– What is the average power ratio (at BEP) of trimmed to full 

• Users with VSD or other controls

– What percent of users have controls?

• We have a few sources of data to review for this

– Will this change over time in the base case or standards ca

– What power reduction factor should be used to account fo

• Efficiency degradation factor

– Data that shows decline in efficiency over time?