i 

PRELIMINARY TSD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 1 

ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSES AND THE PRELIMINARY 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT............................................................................ 3 

ES.3 KEY RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSES ....................................................................... 4 

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment ........................................................................ 4 

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis.................................................................................................... 5 

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis................................................................................................ 5 

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed.......................................................................... 5 

ES.3.3.2 Engineering Analysis Results ......................................................................... 6 

ES.3.4 Energy Use Characterization .................................................................................. 14 

ES.3.5 Markups to Determine Installed Price .................................................................... 16 

ES.3.6 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis ....................................................... 17 

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis................................................................................................. 19 

ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 20 

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis............................................................ 21 

ES.4 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES FOR WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT.... 22 

ES.4.1 Coverage of Small Electric Motors......................................................................... 22 

ES.4.2 Technology Options................................................................................................ 23 

ES.4.3 Screening Analysis.................................................................................................. 23 

ES.4.4 Engineering Analysis Methodology ....................................................................... 23 

ES.4.5 Engineering Analysis Results ................................................................................. 23 

ES.4.6 Reactive Power Losses ........................................................................................... 23 

ES.4.7 Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case .......................................................... 24 

ES.4.8 Purchase Price Elasticity......................................................................................... 24 

ES.4.9 Enforcement for Motors in OEM Equipment ......................................................... 25 

ES.4.10 Monetary Value of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction..................................... 25 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Small Electric Motor Rulemaking Analyses.............................. 2 

Figure ES.3.2 Polyphase 1 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve . 7 

Figure ES.3.3 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Engineering 

Analysis Curve........................................................................................................ 9 

Figure ES.3.4 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 48-Frame Engineering 

Analysis Curve...................................................................................................... 11 

Figure ES.3.5 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run 3⁄4 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Engineering 

Analysis Curve...................................................................................................... 13 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES.3.1 Design Characteristics of the Four Baseline Motors Analyzed .............................. 6 

Table ES.3.2 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the Polyphase Motor ............ 7 

Table ES.3.3 Polyphase, 1 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor Designs................................. 8 

Table ES.3.4 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the Capacitor-Start, InductionRun 56-Frame Motor .............................................................................................. 9 

Table ES.3.5 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run, 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor Designs

............................................................................................................................... 10 

Table ES.3.6 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for Capacitor-Start, InductionRun 48-Frame Motor ............................................................................................ 11 

Table ES.3.7 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run, 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 48-Frame Motor Designs

............................................................................................................................... 12 

Table ES.3.8 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for Capacitor-Start, CapacitorRun Motor............................................................................................................. 13 

Table ES.3.9 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run, 3⁄4 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor .......... 14 

Table ES.3.10 Average Operating Characteristics for Small Electric Motors ............................. 15 

Table ES.3.11 Average Annual Electricity Use by Efficiency Level for Small Electric Motors. 16 

Table ES.3.12 Summary of Small Electric Motor Distribution Channel Markups ...................... 17 

Table ES.3.13 Polyphase Motors: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results ........................ 18 

Table ES.3.14 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Results................................................................................................................... 18 

Table ES.3.15 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run Motors: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Results................................................................................................................... 19 

Table ES.3.16 Annual and Cumulative Shipments Forecast for Small Electric Motors.............. 20 

Table ES.3.17 Polyphase Small Electric Motors: Cumulative National Energy Savings and Net 

Present Value Results ........................................................................................... 21 

Table ES.3.18 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Small Electric Motors: Cumulative National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value Results.................................................... 21 

Table ES.3.19 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run Small Electric Motors: Cumulative National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value Results.................................................... 21 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

1 

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES 

 Part A–1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provides for an 

energy conservation program for certain commercial and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-

6317) In particular, section 346(b)(1) of EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to prescribe, by 

rule, 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 would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) 

 This executive summary describes current activities and key results from the preliminary 

analyses that the Department of Energy (DOE) conducted in consideration of amended energy 

conservation standards for small electric motors. Furthermore, the executive summary identifies 

issues about which DOE seeks comments from interested parties. These issues are addressed in 

more detail in chapter 2 of the preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD) and 

will be discussed in a future public meeting. 

 To evaluate and consider impacts under these seven factors, DOE conducts a detailed 

analysis of regulatory impacts on a product and presents them in a technical support document 

(preliminary TSD). Figure ES.1.1 summarizes the analytical components of this regulatory 

analysis methodology. The focus of this figure is the center column, identified as “Analyses.” 

The columns labeled “Key Inputs” and “Key Outputs” show how the analyses fit into the 

rulemaking process, and how the analyses relate to each other. Key inputs are the types of data 

and other information that the analyses require. Some key inputs exist in public databases; DOE 

collects other inputs from interested parties or persons with special knowledge and expertise. 

Key outputs are analytical results that feed directly into the standards-setting process. Arrows 

connecting analyses show types of information that feed from one analysis to another. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

2 

Utility Impact

Analysis 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

Final Rule

Market and Technology

Assessment

Screening Analysis

Engineering Analysis

Markups for

Product Price

Determination Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period 

Analysis

National Impact

Analysis

Energy Use

Revise Pre-NOPR

Analyses

Life-Cycle Cost 

Sub-Group Analysis

Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis

Shipments

Analysis

Employment Impact

Analysis 

Revise Analyses

• Product C lasses

• Technology Options

• Industry Cash Flow

• Su b-Group Cash-Flow

• Direct Employment Impacts

• Compe titive Impacts

• Cumulative Regulatory Burden

• Cost-Efficie ncy R elat ionship

• Life -Cycle Costs

• Pa yback Periods

• National Energ y Savings

• Net Prese nt Values

• National Employm ent Im pacts

• Revised Resu lts

• Market Se gmenta tion

• Non-Regulatory Programs

Framework Document

• Energy Prices

• Installation Costs

• Maintenan ce & Repair Costs

• Backcast an d Fo recast

• Ma rket Saturation

• Stakeholder Com ments

• Demographics

• Emission Rat es

• National Energy Savings

• Stakeholder Comm ents

• Id entify Firms/Products 

• Historical Shipments

• Manufacturer Prices

• Average Co sts

• M anufacturer Financial Da ta

D esign Options

Pro duct Classes

Retail Prices

D esign Ene rgy

Notice of Public Meeting (NOPM)

• Efficie ncy/Perform ance

• Ma nufacturing Cost

C andidate

Standard 

Leve ls

Environmental

Assessment

Regulatory Impact

Analysis

Technolo gy Op tions

• Em issio n Estima tes

• Utilit y Lo ad Fa cto rs

• Na tion al Ene rgy Saving s

• Non -Reg ula tory

Alternatives

• Desig n Optio ns

• Ene rgy Price Fo recasts

• Site-to-Sou rce Fa cto rs

• Energy-Efficiency Levels

Direct Em plo ymen t 

Impacts

• National Energy Savings

• National Product Costs

• National Operating Costs

• Utility Impacts

• Life -Cycle Costs

• Pa yback Periods

• Installation

Costs

• Maint C osts

• Rep air Costs

• UEC

• Energy 

Prices

• Annu al En ergy Use (UEC)

Preliminary 

Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis

• Manufa ctu rer Prices

• Ave rage C osts

• Conversion C apital E xpen ditures

• Direct Emp loymen t Impacts

• National Energ y Savings

• Net Presen t Values

• Trial Standa rd Le vels (TSLs)

TSLs

• Product Prototypes

Energy-Efficie ncy 

Le vels

• Dep artm ent of Justice Revie w

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Small Electric Motor Rulemaking Analyses 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

3 

ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSES AND THE PRELIMINARY 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

 DOE is publishing a notice of public meeting (NOPM) in the Federal Register, which 

announces the availability of the preliminary TSD, the date of the public meeting, and 

information pertaining to the public meeting. In addition, the NOPM highlights the major 

preliminary analyses DOE has developed at this stage of the rulemaking. 

 The preliminary TSD describes each analysis in detail, providing detailed descriptions of 

inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD provides an 

overview of each preliminary analysis, the comments DOE received in response to the 

framework document, and DOE’s responses to those comments. The remaining chapters of the 

preliminary TSD, which are described below, address the preliminary analyses performed: 

 Chapter 3: A market and technology assessment that characterizes the relevant product 

markets and technology options, including prototype designs. 

 Chapter 4: A screening analysis that reviews each technology option to determine 

whether it (1) is technologically feasible, (2) is practicable to manufacture, install, and service, 

(3) would adversely affect product utility or product availability, or (4) would have adverse 

impacts on health and safety. 

 Chapter 5: An engineering analysis that develops cost-efficiency relationships estimating 

the manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency. DOE determines the increased cost to 

the consumer through an analysis of engineering markups, which convert manufacturer 

production cost (MPC) to manufacturer selling price (MSP). 

 Chapter 6: A markups analysis that converts the estimated MSPs derived from the 

engineering analysis to installed prices. 

 Chapter 7: An energy use analysis that determines the annual energy use of the 

considered products. 

 Chapter 8: Life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses that calculate, at the 

consumer level, the discounted savings in operating costs (less maintenance and repair costs) 

throughout the estimated average life of the covered products, compared to any increase in the 

installed cost for the products likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard. 

 Chapter 9: A shipments analysis that forecasts product shipments, which are then used to 

calculate the national impacts of standards on energy, net present value (NPV), and future 

manufacturer cash flows. 

 Chapter 10: A national impact analysis (NIA) that assesses the aggregate impacts at the 

national level of the NPV of total consumer LCC and national energy savings (NES). 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

4 

 Chapter 11: A life-cycle cost subgroup analysis that evaluates the impacts of standards on 

identifiable groups of customers, such as customers of different business types, which may be 

disproportionately affected by an energy conservation standard. 

Chapter 12: A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) that assesses the potential 

impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturers, such as effects on expenditures for 

capital conversion, marketing costs, shipments, and research and development costs. 

 Chapter 13: A utility impact analysis that examines impacts of energy conservation 

standards on the generation capacity of electric utilities. 

 Chapter 14: An employment impact analysis that examines the effects of energy 

conservation standards on national employment. 

 Environmental Assessment Report: An analysis that evaluates the reduced power plant 

emissions resulting from reduced consumption of electricity. 

 Regulatory Impact Analysis Report: An analysis that (1) identifies and seeks to mitigate 

overlapping effects of regulations on manufacturers and (2) addresses the potential for nonregulatory approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation standards. 

Details on each analysis can be found both in the preliminary TSD chapter 2 and the 

respective chapter identified in each of the bulleted items above. 

ES.3 KEY RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSES 

 The following sections describe in detail the key analyses DOE performed in support of 

the preliminary TSD. 

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment 

 When initiating an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information 

on the present and past industry structure and market characteristics for the equipment 

concerned. This activity assesses the industry and equipment both quantitatively and 

qualitatively, based on publicly available information. For the equipment in the preliminary 

analyses, DOE addressed the following: (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics, 

(2) existing regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives to improve the efficiency of the equipment, 

and (3) trends in the equipment’s characteristics and retail markets. This information serves as 

resource material throughout the rulemaking. 

 DOE reviewed literature and interviewed manufacturers to get an overall understanding 

of the small electric motors industry in the United States. Industry publications and trade 

journals, government agencies, and trade organizations provided the bulk of the information, 

including (1) manufacturers and their market shares, (2) shipments by equipment class, 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

5 

(3) equipment information, and (4) industry trends. The appropriate sections of the preliminary 

TSD chapters 2 and 3 describe the analyses and resulting information. 

 DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype 

designs to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies manufacturers use to 

attain higher performance levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develops a list of 

technologies for consideration. Initially, these technologies encompass all those that DOE 

believes are technologically feasible for improving equipment efficiency. DOE developed its list 

of technologically feasible technologies for small electric motors from its examination of 

technical documents and through consultation with manufacturers and industry experts. 

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis 

 The screening analysis (chapter 4) examines whether various technologies: (1) are 

technologically feasible; (2) are practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) have an 

adverse impact on product utility or availability; and (4) have adverse impacts on health and 

safety. DOE develops an initial list of efficiency-enhancement options (i.e., technology options) 

from the technologies identified as “technologically feasible” in the technology assessment. In 

consultation with interested parties, DOE then reviews the list to determine if these technologies 

are practicable to manufacture, install, and service; would adversely affect product utility or 

availability; or would have adverse impacts on health and safety. DOE removes from the list 

those technology options for which no energy consumption information is available and 

technology options whose energy consumption could not be adequately measured by the existing 

DOE test procedure. In the engineering analysis, DOE uses the efficiency-enhancement options 

(i.e., technology options) that it did not screen out in the screening analysis to estimate the 

characteristics and the cost of higher efficiency equipment. 

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis 

 The engineering analysis (chapter 5) establishes the relationship between the 

manufacturer selling price and the equipment efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for 

cost/benefit calculations in terms of individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. This 

chapter discusses the equipment classes DOE analyzed, the representative baseline units, the 

incremental efficiency levels, the methodology DOE used to develop the manufacturer selling 

price, the cost-efficiency curves for equipment classes analyzed, and the methodology DOE used 

to scale those results to other equipment classes of small electric motors that were not analyzed. 

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed 

 Because of the large number of small electric motor equipment classes, DOE did not 

analyze each one in the engineering analysis. Instead, DOE analyzed three equipment classes, 

one from each of the representative categories (i.e., polyphase; capacitor-start, induction-run 

(CSIR); and capacitor-start, capacitor-run (CSCR)). DOE used catalog data, discussions with 

industry experts, and the Framework Document to select equipment classes to analyze. DOE 

understands that the equipment classes analyzed are representative of the commercial and 

industrial small electric motor market and are therefore reasonable selections for the engineering 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

6 

analysis. After determining the scope of coverage (see preliminary TSD chapter 2 or 3 for 

discussion on scope of coverage), DOE chose to analyze one polyphase motor, two CSIR 

motors, and one CSCR motor. The two CSIR motors are of a different frame series, but still 

represent the same equipment class. The motors presented in Table ES.3.1 are the four motors 

that DOE analyzed. The left three columns provide the three characteristics of a small electric 

motor that define its equipment class – namely, motor category, horsepower and number of 

poles. 

Table ES.3.1 Design Characteristics of the Four Baseline Motors Analyzed 

Motor Category Horsepower Number of Poles Frame Series 

Polyphase 1.00 4 56 

CSIR 0.50 4 56 

CSIR 0.50 4 48 

CSCR 0.75 4 56 

ES.3.3.2 Engineering Analysis Results 

 For each of the four motors presented above, DOE developed five designs using a motor 

design software tool. These included a baseline design and four more efficient designs above the 

efficiency of the baseline motor. Then by using a consistent methodology and pricing scheme 

including material and labor costs and manufacturer’s markups, DOE developed manufacturer 

selling prices for the baseline and more efficient motor designs. Throughout this section, DOE 

will refer to these bottoms-up derived and manufacturer marked-up selling prices as 

“manufacturer selling prices.” 

 Thus, the engineering analysis results are essentially four manufacturer selling priceversus-efficiency curves that represent the four motors analyzed from the representative 

equipment classes. The four graphs shown in Figure ES.3.2 through Figure ES.3.5 provide the 

manufacturer selling price versus efficiency curves and the Table ES.3.2 through Table ES.3.9 

present the tabulated results. 

 In determining the relationship between manufacturing selling price and energy 

efficiency for small electric motors, DOE estimated the increase in manufacturing selling price 

associated with technological changes that increase the efficiency of baseline models. DOE 

developed cost estimates for the engineering analysis from information received from subject 

matter experts with many years experience in the field, manufacturers’ suggestions, and input 

from other industry-related experts, including material suppliers. 

Polyphase, 1 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor 

Figure ES.3.2 presents the relationship between the manufacturer selling price and full-load 

efficiency for the polyphase motor analyzed. DOE developed a maximum technology (maxtech) design using a non-traditional steel type (i.e., Hiperco 50TM) that makes the motor 

considerably more expensive than other designs analyzed. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

7 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0

Full Load Efficiency (%)

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

Figure ES.3.2 Polyphase 1 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor Engineering Analysis 

Curve 

 Table ES.3.2 presents the same engineering analysis results in a tabular form, including 

the full-load efficiency values and the MSPs. Moving from the baseline motor to the premium 

plus motor, DOE found that the full-load efficiency would increase 10.9 percentage points, for 

about a 14-percent improvement over the baseline motor. Raising the efficiency to that level 

caused the MSP to more than double, increasing from $93.46 for the baseline model to $221.35 

for the premium plus motor. 

Table ES.3.2 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the Polyphase Motor 

Motor Design Efficiency (%) Manufacturer Selling Price ($) 

Baseline 75.8 93.46 

Energy Efficient 81.5 105.23 

Premium 85.5 131.55 

Premium Plus 86.7 221.35 

Max Tech 90.4 1,785.49 

 Table ES.3.3 presents some of the design and performance specifications associated with 

the five polyphase designs presented above. To convey additional information on a few of these 

designs, DOE prepared appendix 5A to the preliminary TSD, which presents detailed design and 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

8 

performance specification on one motor design (i.e., the premium motor design) from each of the 

representative motors analyzed. For the polyphase motor designs prepared, DOE presents 

detailed design information on the premium motor design, which is 85.5 percent efficient and has 

a manufacturer’s selling price of $131.55. 

Table ES.3.3 Polyphase, 1 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor Designs 

Parameter Units Baseline Energy 

Efficient Premium Premium Plus Max Tech 

Efficiency % 75.8 81.5 85.5 86.7 90.4 

Line Voltage V 230 230 230 230 230 

Speed RPM 1,714 1,703 1,709 1,719 1,729 

Torque oz-ft 49.6 51.2 49.8 51.4 48.3 

Current A 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.1 

Steel 24M56 24M56 24M19 29M15 Hiperco 50 

0.006 

Rotor Conductor 

Material Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper Copper 

Main Wire AWG 19.0 20.0 19.0 20.5 19.0 

Main Wire Weight lbs 2.530 4.250 5.480 5.850 9.584 

Rotor Conductor 

Weight lbs 1.069 1.078 1.174 1.900 4.890 

Peak Slot Fill % 32.0 55.0 68.4 74.6 73.9 

Locked Rotor Torque oz-ft 125.0 128.0 125.0 127.0 124.0 

Locked Rotor Current A 18.5 17.5 17.5 18.6 18.2 

Stack Length in 2.75 2.85 3.00 3.00 3.50 

Laminations Per Stack # 110 114 120 215 584 

Housing Weight lbs 6.41 6.50 6.60 6.60 7.56 

Slot Liner in2126.186 130.818 137.522 137.522 160.440 

Slot Peg in216.319 16.917 17.795 17.795 20.640 

Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run, 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor 

 Figure ES.3.3 presents the relationship between the MSP and full-load efficiency for the 

56-frame capacitor-start, induction-run motor. The max-tech design incorporates a high-grade 

premium electromagnetic steel alloy that is much more expensive than the high quality 

electromagnetic steel alloy used in the premium plus (second most efficient) design. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

9 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

62.0 64.0 66.0 68.0 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0

Full Load Efficiency (%)

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

Figure ES.3.3 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame 

Engineering Analysis Curve 

 Table ES.3.4 presents the same engineering analysis results in a tabular form, including 

the full-load efficiency values and the MSPs. Moving from the baseline motor to the premium 

plus motor, DOE found that the full-load efficiency would increase 16 percentage points, for 

about a 25-percent improvement over the baseline motor. Raising the efficiency to that level 

caused the MSP to more than double, increasing from $105.61 for the baseline model to $213.82 

for the premium plus motor. 

Table ES.3.4 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the Capacitor-Start, 

Induction-Run 56-Frame Motor 

Motor Design Efficiency (%) Manufacturer Selling Price ($) 

Baseline 63.3 105.61 

Energy Efficient 68.7 112.86 

Premium 75.2 136.51 

Premium Plus 79.3 213.82 

Max Tech 79.3 1,532.94 

 Table ES.3.5 presents some of the design and performance specifications associated with 

the five CSIR 56-frame designs presented above. DOE also provides additional design detail 

and performance specifications for the premium motor design in the preliminary TSD, appendix 

5A. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

10 

Table ES.3.5 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run, 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor 

Designs 

Parameter Units Baseline Energy 

Efficient Premium Premium Plus Max Tech 

Efficiency % 63.3 68.7 75.2 79.3 79.3 

Line Voltage V 115 115 115 115 115 

Speed RPM 1,727 1,727 1,727 1,760 1,760 

Torque oz-ft 24.37 24.44 26.41 24.13 24.13 

Current A 9.17 7.98 8.48 8.18 8.18 

Steel 24M56 24M56 24M19 29M15 Hiperco 50 

0.006 

Rotor Conductor 

Material 

Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper Copper 

Main Wire AWG 20.5 20 19 19 20 

Auxiliary Wire AWG 20.5 20 19.5 19 19 

Main Wire Weight lbs 2.586 3.063 3.777 3.777 5.117 

Auxiliary Wire Weight lbs 0.955 1.101 1.327 1 1.068 

Rotor Conductor 

Weight lbs 0.723 1.06 1.09 1.71 2.67 

Start Capacitor μF 300 300 300 450 450 

Peak Slot Fill % 58.82 65.97 74.95 74.12 74.7 

Locked Rotor Torque oz-ft 85 85.2 87.08 90.22 93.78 

Locked Rotor Current A 36.1 34.6 37.5 41.16 38 

Stack Length in 2 2.3 2.6 2.6 3 

Laminations Per Stack # 80 92 104 186 500 

Housing Weight lbs 6.1 6.15 6.3 6.3 7.245 

Slot Liner in2 91.71 105.56 119.17 119.17 137.3 

Slot Peg in2 11.86 13.66 15.42 15.42 17.71 

Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run, 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 48-Frame Motor 

 Figure ES.3.4 presents the relationship between the MSP and full-load efficiency for the 

48-frame capacitor-start, induction-run motor. The max-tech design incorporates a high-grade 

premium electromagnetic steel alloy that is much more expensive than the high quality 

electromagnetic steel alloy used in the premium plus (second most efficient) design. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

11 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

60.0 62.0 64.0 66.0 68.0 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0

Full Load Efficiency (%)

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

Figure ES.3.4 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 48-Frame 

Engineering Analysis Curve 

 Table ES.3.6 presents the same engineering analysis results in a tabular form, including 

the full-load efficiency values and the MSPs. Moving from the baseline motor to the premium 

plus motor, DOE found that the full-load efficiency would increase 19.4 percentage points, for 

about a 31-percent improvement over the baseline motor. Raising the efficiency to that level 

caused the MSP to more than double, increasing from $96.97 for the baseline model to $212.40 

for the premium plus motor. 

Table ES.3.6 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for Capacitor-Start, 

Induction-Run 48-Frame Motor 

Motor Design Efficiency (%) Manufacturer Selling Price ($) 

Baseline 62.3 96.97 

Energy Efficient 69.5 105.79 

Premium 74.1 120.00 

Premium Plus 81.7 212.40 

Max Tech 82.0 1,547.11 

 Table ES.3.7 presents some of the design and performance specifications associated with 

the five CSIR 48-frame designs presented above. DOE also provides additional design detail 

and performance specifications for the premium motor design in appendix 5A of the preliminary 

TSD. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

12 

Table ES.3.7 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run, 1⁄2 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 48-Frame Motor 

Designs 

Parameter Units Baseline Energy 

Efficient Premium Premium Plus Max Tech 

Efficiency % 62.3 69.5 74.1 81.7 82.0 

Line Voltage V 115 115 115 115 115 

Speed RPM 1,737 1,736 1,738 1,765 1,743 

Torque oz-ft 24.2 24.4 24.2 24.2 24.2 

Current A 9.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 6.7 

Steel 24M56 24M56 24M19 29M15 Hiperco 50 

0.006 

Rotor Conductor 

Material Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper Copper 

Main Wire AWG 19.5 20.5 20.5 20.0 20.5 

Auxiliary Wire AWG 20.0 20.0 20.0 21.5 21.5 

Main Wire Weight lbs 1.561 2.591 2.636 3.114 4.498 

Auxiliary Wire Weight lbs 0.916 0.957 0.974 1.155 1.262 

Rotor Conductor 

Weight lbs 0.645 0.675 0.688 2.392 3.990 

Start Capacitor μF 300 300 300 440 440 

Peak Slot Fill % 49.0 72.2 72.2 74.9 74.6 

Locked Rotor Torque oz-ft 85.3 89.2 90.1 84.1 114.3 

Locked Rotor Current A 35.1 34.3 34.4 45.2 42.2 

Stack Length in 2.65 2.90 3.00 3.40 4.00 

Laminations Per Stack # 106 116 120 243 667 

Housing Weight lbs 4.70 4.90 5.00 5.50 6.65 

Slot Liner in2121.440 133.008 137.575 155.920 188.990 

Slot Peg in215.710 17.211 17.802 20.177 24.410 

Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run, 3⁄4 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor 

 Figure ES.3.5 presents the relationship between the MSP and full-load efficiency for the 

CSCR motor. The max-tech design incorporates a high-grade premium electromagnetic steel 

alloy that is much more expensive than the high quality electromagnetic steel alloy used in the 

premium plus (second most efficient) design. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

13 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

$2,200

66.0 68.0 70.0 72.0 74.0 76.0 78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0

Full Load Efficiency (%)

Manufacturer Selling Price ($)

Figure ES.3.5 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run 3⁄4 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame 

Engineering Analysis Curve 

 Table ES.3.8 presents the same engineering analysis results in tabular form, including the 

full-load efficiency values and the MSPs. Moving from the baseline motor to the premium plus 

motor, DOE found that the full-load efficiency would increase 18.4 percentage points, for about 

a 27-percent improvement over the baseline motor. Raising the efficiency to that level caused 

the MSP to more than double, increasing from $116.17 for the baseline model to $259.78 for the 

premium plus motor. 

Table ES.3.8 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for Capacitor-Start, 

Capacitor-Run Motor 

Motor Design Efficiency (%) Manufacturer Selling Price ($) 

Baseline 68.6 116.17 

Energy Efficient 77.1 124.33 

Premium 82.9 149.50 

Premium Plus 87.0 259.78 

Max Tech 88.3 2,024.82 

 Table ES.3.9 presents some of the design and performance specifications associated with 

the five CSCR designs presented above. DOE also provides additional design detail and 

performance specifications for the premium motor design in the preliminary TSD, appendix 5A. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

14 

Table ES.3.9 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run, 3⁄4 Horsepower, 4-Pole, 56-Frame Motor 

Parameter Units Baseline Energy 

Efficient Premium Premium Plus Max Tech 

Efficiency % 68.6 77.1 82.9 87.0 88.3 

Line Voltage V 115 115 115 115 115 

Speed RPM 1,725 1,732 1,735 1,759 1,745 

Torque oz-ft 36.4 37.6 36.6 36.4 35.9 

Current A 11.6 8.7 7.6 7.3 6.3 

Steel 24M56 24M56 24M19 29M15 Hiperco 50 

0.006 

Rotor Conductor 

Material Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper Copper 

Main Wire AWG 20.5 19.5 19.0 20.0 19.0 

Auxiliary Wire AWG 20.0 20.0 21.5 20.0 20.0 

Main Wire Weight lbs 2.201 2.937 3.354 4.124 5.745 

Auxiliary Wire Weight lbs 0.741 0.699 1.104 1.495 1.614 

Rotor Conductor 

Weight lbs 0.778 1.123 1.136 2.242 3.516 

Start Capacitor μF 550 550 400 550 550 

Run Capacitor μF 20 45 50 50 50 

Peak Slot Fill % 44.7 55.7 61.6 74.2 71.7 

Locked Rotor Torque oz-ft 119.4 119.2 126.7 129.9 156.4 

Locked Rotor Current A 51.2 46.9 39.7 53.3 52.1 

Stack Length in 2.60 2.95 3.10 3.30 4.00 

Laminations Per Stack # 104 118 124 236 667 

Housing Weight lbs 6.10 6.15 6.30 6.50 7.86 

Slot Liner in2119.168 135.261 142.164 151.220 183.030 

Slot Peg in214.904 17.503 18.396 19.567 23.660 

 Manufacturers also submitted data that enabled DOE to create cost efficiency points for 

the four categories of small electric motors examined. Initially, DOE hoped to compare and 

present the results of the DOE-generated cost-efficiency curves and the manufacturers’ 

aggregated cost-efficiency points. However, DOE’s contractor did not receive input from a 

sufficient number of manufacturers to allow for public disclosure of the aggregated manufacturer 

data. 

ES.3.4 Energy Use Characterization 

 The energy use characterization, which assesses the potential energy savings resulting 

from higher efficiency standards, provides the basis for developing the energy savings used in 

the LCC and subsequent analyses. Because the analysis is intended to capture and represent 

typical energy consumption in the field, DOE estimated energy consumption over a 

representative number of annual operating hours at a certain percent of rated full load. 

 Small electric motors convert electrical power to useful mechanical work and generally 

consume energy through (1) energy converted to useful mechanical shaft power, (2) motor 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

15 

losses, and (3) reactive power.a Motor losses consist of I2R (resistance heat) losses, core losses, 

stray-load losses, and friction and windage losses. Core losses and friction and windage losses 

are relatively constant with variations in motor loading, while I2R losses increase with the square 

of the motor loading. Stray-load losses also depend on loading. DOE models the I2R losses and 

stray-load losses as load-dependent losses. 

 DOE’s analysis of energy use separates motor losses into a constant component and a 

variable component that depend on motor loading. In DOE’s analysis, the design efficiency of 

the motor at full load determines the total losses at 100-percent motor loading. DOE then 

estimates that approximately 50 percent of these losses are load independent, while 50 percent 

vary as the square of the motor loading. 

 To calculate the annual kilowatt hours (kWh) use at each efficiency level in each 

equipment class, DOE used the efficiencies and losses from the engineering analysis, along with 

estimates of operating hours and motor loading from the determination analysis, for the 

applications that use equipment containing small electric motors. 

 Table ES.3.10 shows the average values of operating hours and motor loading for each 

equipment class, weighted by the shares of each application. 

Table ES.3.10 Average Operating Characteristics for Small Electric Motors 

Equipment Class Annual Operating Hours 

Motor Loading 

(% of rated) 

Polyphase 2,665 63.2 

CSIR 2,557 64.8 

CSCR 2,557 64.8 

 Table ES.3.11 shows the average annual electricity use for each energy efficiency level in 

each equipment class. 

 

a

 In an alternating current power system, the reactive power is the root mean square (RMS) voltage multiplied by the 

RMS current, multiplied by the sine of the phase difference between the voltage and the current. Reactive power 

occurs when the inductance or capacitance of the load shifts the phase of the voltage relative to the phase of the 

current. While reactive power does not consume energy, it can increase losses and costs for the electricity 

distribution system. Motors tend to create reactive power because the windings in the motor coils have high 

inductance. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

16 

Table ES.3.11 Average Annual Electricity Use by Efficiency Level for Small Electric 

Motors 

Polyphase CSIR CSCR 

Efficiency 

(%) 

kWh Efficiency 

(%) 

kWh Efficiency 

(%) 

kWh 

75.8 444 62.3 410 68.6 465 

84.0 265 70.9 278 80.2 250 

85.5 236 73.6 243 82.1 222 

86.5 217 75.4 220 83.3 203 

88.0 190 78.2 189 85.2 177 

90.0 154 81.8 151 87.6 143 

 See section 2.5 of chapter 2 and chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD for additional detail on 

the energy use characterization. 

ES.3.5 Markups to Determine Installed Price 

 DOE developed the markups to manufacturer prices to derive installed prices for small 

electric motors given the MSPs from the engineering analysis. DOE added the supply-chain 

markups that it developed earlier (along with sales taxes and installation prices) to the MSPs 

developed in the engineering analysis to arrive at the final installed prices for baseline equipment 

as well as higher-efficiency equipment. Section 2.6 of chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD 

summarizes the markup analysis; chapter 7 provides a detailed description of the markup 

analysis and results. 

 For small electric motors, DOE defined three distribution channels and estimated their 

respective shares of shipments in the determination analysis: (1) from manufacturers to original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and then to end-users through OEM distribution (40 percent 

of shipments); (2) from manufacturers to wholesale distributors to OEMs and then to end-users 

through OEM equipment distribution (25 percent of shipments); and (3) from manufacturers to 

end-users through distributors and retailers (35 percent of shipments). Contractors also play a 

role in installing motors in equipment. DOE used the same distribution channel types and 

market shares in the preliminary TSD analysis. 

 Table ES.3.12 summarizes the markups at each stage in the distribution channel and the 

overall baseline and incremental markups, as well as sales taxes, for each of the three identified 

channels. Weighting the markups in each channel by its share of shipments yields an average 

overall baseline markup of 2.42 and an overall incremental markup of 1.75. DOE used these 

markups for each equipment class. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

17 

Table ES.3.12 Summary of Small Electric Motor Distribution Channel Markups 

Direct to OEMs 

(40%) 

Via Distributors to 

OEMs (25%) 

Via Distributors to EndUsers (35%) 

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

Wholesale Distributor - - 1.28 1.10 1.28 1.10 

OEM 1.37 1.27 1.37 1.33 - - 

Retail and Post-OEM 

Distributor 

1.43 1.18 1.43 1.18 1.44 1.18 

Contractor or Installer 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 

Sales Tax 1.0684 1.0684 1.0684 

Overall 2.30 1.76 2.95 2.03 2.17 1.53 

 Using these markups, DOE generated motor end-user prices for each efficiency level it 

considered, assuming that each level represents a new minimum efficiency standard. Because it 

generated a range of price estimates, DOE describes prices within a range of uncertainty. 

ES.3.6 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

 In general, the effect of a new energy conservation standard for a product will result in 

changes to operating expenses for the user—usually a decrease—and changes in purchase price 

for the purchaser—usually an increase. DOE analyzed the net effect of new standards on 

consumers by evaluating the net LCC using the cost-efficiency relationship derived in the 

engineering analysis, as well as the energy costs derived from the energy-use characterization 

analysis. Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the consumer (consumer 

purchase price plus installation cost), operating expenses (energy expenses and maintenance 

costs), the lifetime of the equipment, and a discount rate. Section 2.7 of chapter 2 of this 

preliminary TSD summarizes the LCC and PBP analysis; chapter 8 provides the detailed 

description of the LCC and PBP analysis and a detailed description of the results. 

 DOE calculated the average LCC savings relative to the base case forecast for each 

equipment class of small electric motors. As mentioned above, the base case consists of the 

projected pattern of equipment purchases that would occur without new energy conservation 

standards. 

 Table ES.3.13 through Table ES.3.15 present key findings from the LCC and PBP 

analyses DOE performed for this preliminary TSD. Most of the values in the tables are average 

or median values, though the tables also show the percentage of end users expected to have a net 

cost (negative LCC savings) or a net benefit (positive LCC savings) at each energy efficiency 

level. The average LCC savings are calculated relative to the base case, which in the present 

analysis assumes that all motor purchases are at the baseline energy efficiency level. Chapter 8 

of the preliminary TSD presents distributions of LCC and PBP results for each equipment class. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

18 

 For polyphase motors, the highest energy efficiency level with positive average LCC 

savings is level 2 at 85.5 percent. DOE estimates that approximately 66 percent of end users 

would have a net benefit (i.e., LCC decrease) at this level. The increase in average total installed 

cost at this level (relative to the base case) is $66, or 14 percent, while operating costs decrease 

by $14 or 47 percent. 

Table ES.3.13 Polyphase Motors: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Consumers with Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency

(%) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

($) 

Average 

Annual 

Operating 

Cost 

($) 

Average 

LCC 

($) 

Average 

Savings

($) 

Net 

Cost 

(%) 

Net 

Benefit 

(%) 

Median Average 

Baseline 76.37 482 31 692 

1 84.00 523 19 653 40 17.4 82.6 4.0 4.9 

2 85.50 548 17 664 29 33.9 66.1 5.5 6.6 

3 86.50 663 16 769 - 77 89.3 10.7 13.6 16.5 

4 88.00 986 14 1,079 - 386 99.7 0.3 33.5 40.7 

5 90.00 2,619 11 2,695 - 2,002 100.0 0.0 2.8 3.7 

 For CSIR motors, the highest energy efficiency level with positive average LCC savings 

is level 4 at 75.4 percent; however, DOE estimates that approximately 61 percent of end users 

would have a net cost (i.e., LCC increase) at this level. The increase in average total installed 

cost at this level (relative to the base case) is $52, or 11 percent, while operating costs decrease 

by $12 or 43 percent. 

Table ES.3.14 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Motors: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Energy Users with 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency

(%) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

($) 

Average 

Annual 

Operating 

Cost 

($) 

Average 

LCC 

($) 

Average 

Savings

($) 

Net 

Cost 

(%) 

Net 

Benefit 

(%) 

Median Average 

Baseline 63.30 490 28 648 

1 70.90 510 20 622 26 17.7 82.3 2.8 3.7 

2 73.60 526 17 624 24 27.8 72.2 3.8 5.0 

3 75.40 542 16 630 18 39.3 60.7 4.8 6.2 

4 78.20 579 14 655 - 7 65.1 34.9 7.0 9.0 

5 81.80 977 11 1,037 - 390 99.8 0.2 32.1 41.6 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

19 

 For CSCR motors, the highest energy efficiency level with positive average LCC savings 

is level 3 at 83.3 percent. DOE estimates that approximately 71 percent of end users would have 

a net benefit at this level. The increase in average total installed cost at this level (relative to the 

base case) is $64, or 12 percent, while operating costs decrease by $19 or 56 percent. 

Table ES.3.15 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run Motors: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Energy Users with 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency

(%) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

($) 

Average 

Annual 

Operating 

Cost 

($) 

Average 

LCC 

($) 

Average 

Savings

($) 

Net 

Cost 

(%) 

Net 

Benefit

(%) 

Median Average 

Baseline 67.91 532 34 724 

1 80.20 561 18 661 63 8.8 91.2 2.0 2.6 

2 82.10 578 16 667 57 18.0 82.0 2.9 3.7 

3 83.30 598 15 680 45 27.6 72.4 3.9 5.0 

4 85.20 656 13 727 - 3 61.8 38.3 6.6 8.5 

5 87.60 1,402 10 1,460 - 735 100.0 0.0 41.7 53.4 

 DOE presents these findings to facilitate review of the LCC and PBP analyses. DOE 

seeks information and comments relevant to its assumptions, methodology, and results. See 

chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD for additional detail on the analyses. 

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis 

 Shipments estimates are a key input into the national impact analysis (see section 2.8 of 

chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD). DOE also will use shipment estimates as an input to the 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), discussed in section 2.11. DOE developed a set of 

shipment forecasts for each small electric motor equipment category. Within each category, 

small electric motor shipments are comprised of products in a number of horsepower ratings and 

three rotational speeds (3,600 rpm or two-pole, 1,800 rpm or four-pole, and 1,200 rpm or sixpole). 

 DOE’s shipment forecast assumes that sales of small electric motors are driven by 

macroeconomic activity of the economic sector in which they are used. The small electric 

motors covered in this preliminary TSD are mainly used in the industrial, agricultural, and 

commercial sectors. DOE estimates that less than 1 percent of the motors covered in this rule are 

used in the residential sector. DOE assumed that shipment growth rates for each sector are equal 

to growth rates in the following economic drivers, provided by AEO 2008 until 2030: 

• industrial and agricultural—manufacturing activity (total shipments, manufacturing only, 

in dollars); 

• commercial—commercial floor space; and 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

20 

• residential—number of households. 

 The resulting average annual growth rates for shipments of small electric motors from 

2015 to 2030 are 1.4 percent for polyphase motors and 1.1 percent for CSIR and CSCR motors. 

In each case, motor sales follow the sector trend year by year, according to the time series 

provided by AEO 2008. Therefore, the growth rate is not constant. After 2030, DOE forecasted 

shipments using the average growth rates for 2020−2030. 

 Sales of small electric motors may be sensitive to increases in the installed cost. Totally 

enclosed motors are potential substitutes for the open-construction motors covered in the 

preliminary analyses. Totally enclosed motors come in the same frame sizes and horsepower 

ratings and have similar performance characteristics. Today, the incremental cost of using a 

totally enclosed motor instead of an open-construction motor is approximately 18 percent. If the 

installed cost of open-construction motors were to increase much beyond 18 percent due to 

energy conservation standards, there might be some migration to totally enclosed motors. 

 DOE believes that increases in the installed cost of small electric motors could reduce 

their purchase due to migration by OEMs to totally enclosed motors or other factors. However, 

DOE has not found any data that would allow it to estimate the elasticity of small electric motor 

shipments with respect to purchase price or other factors. Therefore, DOE requests information 

on the level of price change for the small electric motors covered in the preliminary analyses that 

would be likely to induce migration to totally enclosed motors, as well as data on what would be 

an appropriate value to use for purchase price elasticity. 

 Chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD provides additional detail on the shipments analysis. 

 Table ES.3.16 presents DOE’s estimate of forecasted small electric motor shipments. 

Additional detail on the shipments analyses can be found in chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD. 

Table ES.3.16 Annual and Cumulative Shipments Forecast for Small Electric Motors 

Annual Shipments (millions) 

Equipment Class 2015 2025 2035 2045 

Cumulative 

2015–2045 

Polyphase 0.638 0.732 0.831 0.944 24.3 

CSIR 6.001 6.640 7.423 8.431 219.6 

CSCR 0.316 0.349 0.385 0.423 11.4 

ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis 

 The national impact analysis estimates future national energy savings of candidate 

standards levels and the economic impacts on end users. The analysis measures economic 

impacts using the net present value (i.e., future amounts discounted to the present) of total enduser costs and savings expected to result from new standards at specific efficiency levels. For a 

given candidate standard level, DOE calculated the NPV, as well as the NES, as the difference 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

21 

between a base case forecast and the standards case. NES is estimated in terms of savings in 

source energy (primary fuel inputs to electricity production and delivery). Chapter 2 of the 

preliminary TSD presents an overview of the analytical methodology and Chapter 10 provides 

additional detail on the national impacts analysis. 

 Table ES.3.17 through Table ES.3.19 show the results of the NES and NPV calculations. 

An NPV greater than zero shows net savings (i.e., the candidate standard level would reduce 

customer expenditures relative to the base case in present value terms). An NPV less than zero 

indicates that the candidate energy conservation standard level would result in a net increase in 

customer expenditures in present value terms. 

 For polyphase motors, the highest-efficiency candidate standard level (CSL) that has a 

positive NPV is CSL 2. For CSIR motors, the highest-efficiency CSL that has a positive NPV is 

CSL 4. For CSCR motors, the highest-efficiency CSL that has a positive NPV is CSL 3 (using a 

7-percent discount rate) or CSL 4 (using a 3-percent discount rate). NPV results can be 

qualitatively different from LCC results because of differences in either discount rates or longterm trends in energy prices. 

Table ES.3.17 Polyphase Small Electric Motors: Cumulative National Energy Savings 

and Net Present Value Results 

Candidate Standard Level 

Analysis 

Discount Rate 

(%) CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5 

NES (quads) -- 0.217 0.255 0.280 0.315 0.362 

3 0.59 0.46 -0.87 -4.81 -25.39 NPV (billion 2007$) 

7 0.23 0.16 -0.48 -2.38 -12.29 

Table ES.3.18 Capacitor-Start, Induction-Run Small Electric Motors: Cumulative 

National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Results 

Candidate Standard Level 

Analysis 

Discount Rate 

(%) CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5 

NES (quads) -- 1.095 1.434 1.646 1.946 2.314 

3 3.79 3.86 3.27 0.63 -43.31 NPV (billion 2007$) 7 1.51 1.45 1.10 -0.26 -21.62 

Table ES.3.19 Capacitor-Start, Capacitor-Run Small Electric Motors: Cumulative 

National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Results 

Candidate Standard Level 

Analysis 

Discount Rate 

(%) CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5 

NES (quads) -- 0.114 0.129 0.138 0.151 0.168 

3 0.47 0.44 0.37 0.10 -4.30 NPV (billion 2007$) 7 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.00 -2.14 

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

 The preliminary manufacturer impact analysis focuses on manufacturers of small electric 

motors. Potential impacts include financial effects, both quantitative and qualitative, that might 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

22 

result from new energy conservation standards and consequently lead to changes in the 

manufacturing practices for small electric motors. DOE identified these potential impacts 

through interviews with manufacturers and interested parties, as well as through the gathering of 

publicly available data on products, methods, and practices used in the small electric motors 

industry. 

 

 Next, DOE determined how energy efficiency improvements affect cost, production, and 

various other manufacturing metrics. 

 Finally, DOE interviewed manufacturers for feedback. DOE developed a questionnaire 

and distributed it for use during the interviews. Highlights of the questionnaire and topics of 

focus include production and product mix, compliance costs, exports, foreign competition and 

outsourcing, market shares and industry consolidation, and cumulative burden. 

 Perhaps the most important aspect of the preliminary MIA is the opportunity to identify 

key manufacturer issues early in the development of new standards. During the series of 

preliminary interviews with manufacturers, DOE assessed concerns about the potential impact of 

a regulatory standard for small electric motors. In general, manufacturers identified three major 

issues of concern: (1) capital expenditure to retool in response to the standards, (2) maintaining 

product availability and consumer-oriented features, and (3) enforcement of the new standards. 

ES.4 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES FOR WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT 

 DOE is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of this preliminary TSD, 

particularly on the following issues. 

ES.4.1 Coverage of Small Electric Motors 

 The term “small electric motor” means a NEMA general-purpose alternating-current 

single-speed induction motor, built in a two-digit frame number series in accordance with 

NEMA MG1–1987. These motors include polyphase and single-phase motors and include nonservo three-phase motors; capacitor-start, induction-run motors; and capacitor-start, capacitorrun motors. These motors all have a 42-, 48-, or 56-frame size (or metric equivalent) and are 

open construction. DOE recognizes that the coverage for the current activity is slightly narrower 

than that considered for the determination analysis because DOE is now reading the statutory 

definition of small electric motor as being applicable only to motors with an open construction. 

In the determination analysis, coverage had been interpreted as encompassing both open and 

totally enclosed small electric motors. DOE invites interested parties to comment specifically on 

its interpretation of coverage for the preliminary analyses. If interested parties do not agree with 

DOE’s interpretation, DOE requests specific legal interpretation and justification for any 

dissenting viewpoints. Please refer to section 2.2.1 of chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

23 

ES.4.2 Technology Options 

 DOE invites comments on the list of technology options developed in the technology 

assessment. DOE invites comment on the completeness and description of these technology 

options. Please refer to section 2.2.3 of chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD. 

ES.4.3 Screening Analysis 

 DOE invites comments on the three technology options that were screened out of the 

analysis—radial air gaps below ten thousandths of an inch, plastic bonded iron powder, and 

permanent magnet electric motors. Please refer to section 2.3 of chapter 2 of the preliminary 

TSD. 

ES.4.4 Engineering Analysis Methodology 

 DOE invites comments on the methodology followed for the preliminary TSD, namely 

use of engineering software to design more efficient versions of the four representative units 

analyzed. DOE is also interested in comment on the baseline models selected, and whether these 

are the appropriate baseline models on which to be base the engineering analysis. Finally, DOE 

is also interested in comments on the estimated manufacturer markups and labor rates that enable 

the conversion of input costs to selling prices. Please refer to section 2.4 of chapter 2 of the 

preliminary TSD. 

ES.4.5 Engineering Analysis Results 

 DOE invites comments on the findings of the engineering analysis. DOE also invites 

comment on the decision to drop one of the four motors from the preliminary TSD analysis due 

to the similar findings between the 48- and 56-frame size CSIR motors. 

ES.4.6 Reactive Power Losses 

 Motors can induce costs on the electrical system and their owners not only through their 

consumptive energy losses, but also through the production of reactive power. Reactive power 

arises in inductive loads that shift the phase of the alternating-current power and reflect a portion 

of the incoming power back to the electrical system. Reactive power results in higher electrical 

power circuit currents and can induce losses on the customer side of the electrical meter and the 

electric power system in general. b 

 

b

Reactive power occurs when a coil (such as in a motor) or capacitor (such as in a consumer appliance) is 

connected to an alternating current power supply (e.g., generator), the coil or capacitor stores electrical energy 

during one-fourth of an alternating current cycle. But then during the next quarter-cycle, the coil or capacitor dumps 

all the stored energy back into the distant alternating current power supply. In other words, where electrical power 

is delivered from a generator to a motor, reactive power travels in both directions, between the generator and the 

motor. This leads to an extra current in the power lines that generates heat in the power lines, but which is not used 

to provide energy to the appliance. The coil or capacitor causes electrical energy to begin "sloshing" back and forth 

between the appliance and the distant alternating current generator. Electric companies must install heavier wires to 

tolerate this excess current and will charge an extra amount for this "unused" energy. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

24 

 Because of the losses that reactive power can create in the electrical system, many 

utilities charge a reactive power penalty for industrial and commercial customers that do not 

correct or mitigate reactive power problems with their loads. 

 Utilities and large customers usually correct reactive power problems by adding 

capacitors to the system. Capacitors shift the phase of an alternating-current power signal in the 

opposite direction as alternating-current loads and thus can efficiently correct reactive power 

problems. Depending on the efficiency of the electrical system and power factor correction 

measures, reactive power may or may not result in significant consumptive energy losses. 

 Typically, reactive power is about the same size as other consumptive losses of a motor. 

However, in an efficiently corrected distribution system (i.e., one with a sufficient number of 

capacitors) only a relatively small fraction of this power should result in consumptive losses 

because the capacitors confine the higher electrical power circuit currents to a small portion of 

the electrical system. Thus, while DOE expects to include a cost factor to account for reactive 

power effects later in the NOPR analysis, DOE does not expect to include consumptive losses 

because they are likely to be small. DOE invites comments by interested parties on this 

approach and any data that they may have on the fraction of motor reactive power that may result 

in consumptive losses on the customer circuits and electrical power system in general. Please 

refer to section 2.5 of chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD. 

ES.4.7 Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case 

 For the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed candidate standard levels relative to a base case. 

This requires an estimate of the distribution of product efficiencies in the base case (i.e., what 

consumers would have purchased in 2015 in the absence of new standards). In other 

rulemakings, DOE often used the distribution of product efficiencies currently in the marketplace 

to develop its distribution estimate in the base case. DOE found some indications of purchasing 

of higher-efficiency motors, but it did not have detailed data on what proportion of sales such 

motors account for at present. For the preliminary TSD, DOE estimated an average efficiency in 

the base case close to the baseline efficiency levels. DOE requests comments on this estimate, as 

well as information on the distribution of equipment efficiencies currently in the marketplace. 

Please refer to section 2.7 of chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD. 

ES.4.8 Purchase Price Elasticity 

 An increase in the installed cost of small electric motors could reduce their purchase due 

to migration by OEMs to totally enclosed motors, which are not covered by DOE standards, or 

other factors. However, DOE has not found any data that would allow it to estimate the 

elasticity of small electric motor shipments with respect to change in their purchase price or 

other factors. DOE requests information on the level of price change for covered small electric 

motors that would be likely to induce migration to totally enclosed motors, as well as data on 

what would be an appropriate value for purchase price elasticity. Please refer to section 2.8.1 of 

chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2
 

25 

ES.4.9 Enforcement for Motors in OEM Equipment 

 Of particular concern is the enforcement of standards on small electric motors contained 

within imported OEM equipment. Subpart U, "Enforcement," of 10 CFR 431 describes 

violations of the energy conservation standards, and specific procedures that DOE will follow in 

pursuing alleged non-compliance of an electric motor. DOE intends to apply these procedures to 

small electric motors. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, DOE understands that in some cases a 

small electric motor is imported as a component that operates in or drives a larger piece of 

equipment. Consequently, direct access to the component small electric motor for examination 

may be difficult or impossible and shipping documents for the OEM equipment may not provide 

sufficient information that extends to the efficiency of that small electric motor. DOE 

understands that enforcement of energy efficiency requirements for small electric motors is 

unlike other consumer products or commercial equipment and if it is difficult to enforce 

efficiency standards for small electric motors contained imported OEM equipment, then this may 

increase competitive burdens on domestic OEM equipment manufacturers relative to foreign 

OEM equipment manufacturers. DOE invites comment on issues of enforcement. DOE also 

requests data and information from interested parties that can assist in evaluating the potential 

impact of standards on moving OEM equipment assembly and manufacture offshore under 

conditions of weak or incomplete regulatory standards enforcement. 

ES.4.10 Monetary Value of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction 

 DOE invites comment on the monetary value of carbon dioxide emissions reduction. 

DOE will use monetary values to represent the potential value of such emissions reductions. 

DOE invites comment on methods for estimating the net monetary value of carbon dioxide 

emissions reductions. DOE also invites comment on which data and reports provide information 

regarding widely accepted values that may be used in DOE’s analyses. Please refer to section 

2.14 of chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD. 

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 07.2