ASRACPumpsWorkingGroupSettingEfficiencyLevelsApril29‐30,20142BackgroundandIntroductionEfficiencyLevelsAnEfficiencyLevel(EL)canbedescribedasa“possiblestandardlevel”thatcanbeevaluatedandanalyzedtodetermineifitiseconomicallyjustified.Inatypicalrulemaking,DOEestablishesandevaluatesmultipleELsforeachequipmentclassunderconsideration.Inthiscase,theworkinggroupmayparticipateinestablishingtheELstoevaluate.AfterreviewingtheenergysavingsandeconomicanalysisresultsfortheELsunderconsideration,theworkinggroupwillselectanELtoproposetoASRACastheminimumenergyconservationstandardlevelforeachequipmentclass.3EUMethodologyEUMethodology‐Review•Beforewelookatthemethodandmetricthatisbeingpursuedaspartofthisworkinggroup,wewillreviewtheEUmethodologyandstandards,whichserveasanexampleofapossiblemeansofevaluatingprospectiveefficiencylevels4EULot11MethodologyTheMetric:MEI(MinimumEfficiencyIndex)Market‐basedindexthatsimplyrepresentshowwellapump’sefficiencycomparestothemarketplaceasawholeoMEI10indicatesthepumpisbetterthanthebottom10%,MEI40indicatesbetterthanthebottom40%,andsoon.oInotherwords,astandardsetatMEI10cutsoff10%ofpumpmodels,whileastandardsetatMEI40cutsoff40%ofpumpmodels.Sohowdowedeterminehowagivenpumpcomparestothemarketusingthismethod?5EULot11MethodologyStep1:DefinetheEfficiencySurfaceDuetosizeandgeometrydifferences,everypumpinthemarketplacewillhaveadifferentmaximumattainableefficiencyBasedonextensiveresearch,theEUfoundattainableefficiencytobeastrongfunctionofflow(Q)andspecificspeed(ns*)Thisresearchdefinedthe“EfficiencySurface”bytheaverageefficiencyseenintheEUmarketplaceforallpumpswithinscopeasafunctionofflowandspecificspeed.Thus,allpumpsfallingontheMEIsurfaceareofequalrelativeefficiencyoThisallowspumpsofvaryingflowsandspecificspeedstobecomparedonanevenplayingfield.*ns=(nQ1/2)/H3/46EULot11MethodologyStep2:UsetheSurfacetoDefineMEILevelsTranslatetheefficiencysurfaceupanddowntocreateELsthatremoveor“cutoff”pumpsfromthemarketplaceoTranslatedowntocutofffewerpumps(HigherC‐Value)oTranslateuptocutoffmorepumps(LowerC‐Value)Thetranslationisdonebyusingthe“C‐Value”CutoffatMEI10C=132.25CutoffatMEI50C=125.75CutoffatMEI85C=121.25USMarketData**Note:C‐Valuesareapproximateandforillustrativepurposesonlyη஻ா௉,ெூே	ோாொൌ 88.59lnNs ൅ 13.46lnQ െ 11.48lnNsଶെ 0.85lnܳଶെ 0.38 lnܰݏ ∗ lnܳ െܥ7EULot11MethodologyResults:EULot11“EfficiencyLevels”Each“efficiencylevel”targetedaconstantfailurerateforeachequipmentclassThefailurerateforeachequipmentclassand“EL”wasachievedbyselectingaC‐valuetomovetheMEIsurfacetoapositionthatcut‐offtheappropriateamountofpumpsEach“EL”,orMEIlevel,wasconsideredasapossiblestandardlevel“EL”1 “EL”2 “EL”3 “EL”4 “EL”5 “EL”6 “EL”7 “EL”8 “EL”9 “EL”10MEI5 MEI10 MEI15 MEI20 MEI30 MEI40 MEI50 MEI60 MEI70 MEI808PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupPotentialStandardSettingMethodology•NowwewilllookatthepotentialELstobeevaluatedaspartofthisworkinggroupandhowtheiraccompanyingC‐Valuescouldbesetusingthepreviouslydescribedmethod9PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupPotentialEfficiencyLevelsSimilartotheEU,ELscanbesetbytargetingafailurerateforeachequipmentclassEachELwouldthenbeanalyzedtodeterminewhetherastandardatthatlevelwouldbeeconomicallyjustifiedWecanevaluateadditional,intermediatelevelslater,asneeded.PotentialEfficiencyLevelsforeachEquipmentClassEfficiencyLevel EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6%ofModels “Cut‐Off”orFailing10% 25% 40% 55% 70% 85%Next,wemustdeterminetheC‐Valuesforeachequipmentclassesateachefficiencylevel10PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupDeterminingC‐ValuesUsingthePERMetricWefirststartbylookingathowourmetric,PER,isconstructedPER ൌ 	 ߱଴.଻ହ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱఎ೛ೠ೘೛,బ.ళఱൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ+߱୆୉୔௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶುఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶು൅߱ଵ.ଵ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,భ.భఎ೛ೠ೘೛,భ.భൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,భ.భWhenconsideringsettingefficiencylevels,onlytheminimumrequiredefficiencyatBEPandpartialBEParevariables,foragivenpump.FromtheEUefficiencysurface,weknowthatforagivenpump(Q&Ns):Min.Req.ߟݑ݌

݉݌,ܧܤܲ=f(C)AndleveragingtheEUregulationwecanalsosaythatReq.Min.ߟ݌݉ݑ݌,0.75(x 0.947 =Req.Min.ߟ݌݉ݑ݌,ܲܧܤ(Req.Min.ߟ݌݉ݑ݌,1.1(x 0.985 =Req.Min.ߟ݌݉ݑ݌,ܲܧܤ(ThereforetheonlyvariableremainingwhenlookingatsettinganELis“C”ܲܧܴா௙௙.	௅௘௩௘௟ൌ ߱଴.଻ହܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,଴.଻ହ0.947 ∗ ܯ݅݊. ܴ݁ݍ. ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ሺܥሻൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହ൅ ߱୆୉୔ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,஻ா௉ܯ݅݊. ܴ݁ݍ. ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ሺܥሻൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,஻ா௉൅߱ଵ.ଵܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,ଵ.ଵ0.985 ∗ ܯ݅݊. ܴ݁ݍ. ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ሺܥሻൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,ଵ.ଵൌ 88.59lnNs ൅ 13.46lnQ െ 11.48lnNsଶെ 0.85lnܳଶെ 0.38 lnܰݏ ∗ lnܳ െܥ11PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupDeterminingC‐Values(Cont’d)VaryingtheC‐ValuewilloutputaPERvaluethatcanbecomparedagainstthecalculatedPERforagivenpumpmodeltodetermineifthegivenpumpmodelpassesorfailsAsingleC‐valueresultsinadifferentPERvalueforeachNsandQcombinationWecanthenlookathowmanypumpmodelspassorfailateachC‐Valueܲܧܴா௙௙௜௖௜௘௡௖௬	௅௘௩௘௟ൌ߱଴.଻ହ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱ଴.ଽସ଻∗ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ+߱୆୉୔௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶುఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶು൅߱ଵ.ଵ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,భ.భ଴.ଽ଼ହ∗ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,భ.భ12PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupDeterminingC‐Values(Cont’d)WecanalsorearrangetheequationtodeterminetheC‐ValueatwhichagivenpumpmodelwouldfailApumpmodel approachesfailurewhen:ܴܧ݈ܲ݁ݒ݁ܮ ݕ݂݂݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿܧ=ܴܧܲ 

# PumpThereforeforthisanalysis:Rearranging:Where:Therefore:ܲܧܴ௉௨௠௣ൌ	߱଴.଻ହ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱ଴.ଽସ଻∗ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ+߱୆୉୔௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶುఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶು߱ଵ.ଵ௉೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,భ.భ଴.ଽ଼ହ∗ఎ೛ೠ೘೛,ಳಶುሺ஼ሻൈఎ೘೚೟೚ೝ,భ.భߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ܥൌ߱଴.଻ହܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,଴.଻ହ0.947 ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହ+߱୆୉୔ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,஻ா௉ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,஻ா௉߱ଵ.ଵܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,ଵ.ଵ0.985 ൈ ߟ௢௠௧௢௥,ଵ.ଵܴܧܲ௣௠௨௉ܥி௔௜௟௜௡௚ൌ െఠబ.ళఱು೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,బ.ళఱబ.వరళൈആ೘೚೟೚ೝ,బ.ళఱ+ఠాుౌು೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,ಳಶುആ೘೚೟೚ೝ,ಳಶುఠభ.భು೓೤೏ೝೌೠ೗೔೎,భ.భబ.వఴఱൈആ೘೚೟೚ೝ,భ.భ௉ாோುೠ೘೛൅ ݂ሺܳ, ܰݏ(ߟ௣௨௠௣,஻ா௉ܥ ൌ ݂ሺܳ, ܰݏ(−ܥி௔௜௟௜௡௚ൌ 88.59lnNs ൅ 13.46lnQ െ 11.48lnNsଶെ 0.85lnܳଶെ 0.38 lnܰݏ ∗ lnܳ െܥி௔௜௟௜௡௚13PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupDeterminingC‐Values(Cont’d)WiththefailingC‐Valueofeverypumpmodelknown,wecanevaluatethedistributionofC‐ValuesandselectC‐Valuesthatcut‐offthedesiredamountofmodels10%FailingC =132.3340%FailingC =126.8670%FailingC =123.6814PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupPreliminaryResultsThetablebelowdisplayspreliminaryresultsbasedonaggregatedmanufacturerdatarepresentingapproximatelyhalfofshipments.PRELIMINARYC‐ValuesforEfficiencyLevelsEL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6EquipmentClass 10% 25% 40% 55% 70% 85%ESCC 1800 132.33 128.59 126.86 125.04 123.68 121.51ESCC 3600 133.06 130.13 128.70 127.23 125.08 122.63ESFM 1800 131.30 128.18 126.55 124.95 123.47 120.98ESFM 3600 132.71 130.43 128.70 127.53 125.32 123.28IL 1800 133.91 129.31 127.31 125.76 124.19 122.01IL 3600 140.24 133.83 131.00 129.34 127.35 124.1115PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupSelectingaStandardLevelForeachEL,theconsultantteamwillprovideresultsfor:AverageLifeCycleCost(LCC)savingsIncrementalequipmentcostOperatingcostsavingsPercentofpopulationwithnetcost,netbenefit,andnoimpactNationalenergysavings(NES)Nationalnetpresentvalue(NPV)Changeinindustrynetpresentvalue(INPV)Andadditionaldownstreamanalyses(emissions,monetization,etc.)Afterreviewingtheanalysesandanyrequestedrevisions,theworkinggroupwillreviewtheresultsanddeterminewhichEL(C‐Value)toselectastheenergyconservationstandardforeachequipmentclass.Asproposed,theenergyconservationstandardwillbeaformulathatisafunctionofflow,specificspeed,andhydraulicpower.16PotentialMethodologyforWorkingGroupComparingYourPumptotheStandardLevelCalculateܲܧܴ 

# Pumpaccordingtothemethodologydescribedinthetestprocedure.Forexample,bymeasuringshaftinputpoweratmultipleloadpointsandapplyingspecifiedmotorlosses.UsetheenergyconservationstandardformulatodeterminetheܲܧܴStandardspecifictoyourpumpmodel’shydrauliccharacteristics.ForexampleforanESCC1800pumpwithastandardsetatEL3,theCvalueis126.86:Ns,Q,andܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,௜arevaluesderivedfromthetestingthepumpmodelinquestionaccordingtothetestprocedureߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହisassignedbasedonthetestprocedurerulesCompareܲܧܴ 

# Pumptoܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ(assumingnodenominator):Ifܲܧܴ 

# Pump>ܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ,itfailsIfܲܧܴ 

# Pump≤ܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗ,itpassesܲܧܴௌ௧௔௡ௗ௔௥ௗൌ188.59lnNs൅ 13.46lnQെ 11.48lnNsଶെ 0.85lnܳଶെ 0.38 lnܰݏ∗ lnܳെ126.86ൈ߱଴.଻ହܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,଴.଻ହ0.947 ൈߟ௢௠௧௢௥,଴.଻ହ+߱୆୉୔ܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,஻ா௉1.0 ൈߟ௢௠௧௢௥,஻ா௉߱ଵ.ଵܲ௛௬ௗ௥௔௨௟௜௖,ଵ.ଵ0.985 ൈߟ௢௠௧௢௥,ଵ.ଵ