## Public Meeting for Energy Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors September 13, 2007 - Washington, DC

Issues for Stakeholder Comment The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a document on its website in conjunction with this public meeting: Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Small Electric Motors. While DOE invites comments from stakeholders on all aspects of the material presented in this document, there are several issues in particular on which DOE seeks comment and they are identified in issue boxes. The list of issues is reproduced below, grouped according to the session today at which they will be discussed. Within those groupings, the issues are numbered according to their appearance in the framework document. Unnumbered items do not appear in the Framework Document. 

## 1. Introduction [No Issues] 

## 2. Test Procedure Item 2 DOE welcomes comment on any additional test procedures that should be considered or comments about the procedures listed. 

## 3. Energy Conservation Standards [No Issues] 

## 4. ANOPR Analyses Market and Technology Assessment Item 1 DOE welcomes comment on additional covered products that contain small motors or other factors that would affect the scope of the small electric motors rulemaking. DOE welcomes comment on whether small electric motors with non-standard frame sizes (i.e., other than 42, 48, 56) or small electric motors built with metric dimensions are considered to have a two-digit frame number series if D is between 0.625" and 6.1875". DOE invites comment on whether any shaded-pole, permanent split capacitor, split-phase, or resistance-start motors 1) are currently manufactured or 2) could be manufactured to meet the statutory definition of "small electric motor." (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F))

Page 1 of 4

### Issues for Comment

DOE welcomes market-share or shipment information of single-phase and polyphase squirrelcage and wound-rotor motors that meet the statutory definition of "small electric motor." (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(F)) 

### DOE invites comment on the horsepower ratings of covered small electric motors, particularly where two-digit frame number series have ratings in excess of 1 horsepower. Item 3 DOE welcomes input on shipments, manufacturing costs, distribution channels and estimates of market shares for the small electric motors covered in this rulemaking. For DOE to be able to use the data to conduct energy savings calculations, a degree of disaggregation (e.g., equipment class, frame size, and horsepower) is desirable. Item 4 DOE welcomes comment on equipment classes for single-phase, capacitor-start, induction-run electric motors. Item 5 DOE welcomes comment on equipment classes for single-phase, capacitor-start, capacitor-run electric motors. Item 6 DOE welcomes comment on equipment classes for polyphase electric motors. DOE welcomes input on which parameters should be considered in the division of equipment classes. DOE also welcomes comment on if any other parameters should be considered in the division of equipment classes. Item 8 DOE welcomes comment on which baseline models should be selected from the representative equipment classes, and why. Item 9 DOE welcomes comment on the scaling of findings from the representative equipment classes to other equipment classes that it does not analyze. Item 7 DOE welcomes comment on the preliminary design options identified in this section. The DOE welcomes comment on whether there are other technology options that it should also consider. 

### Screening Analysis Item 10 DOE welcomes comment on how the above four screening criteria might apply to a technology design option(s) that a stakeholder recommends to DOE. 

### Engineering Analysis Item 11 For each equipment classes, DOE welcomes stakeholder comment on methods and approaches employed to improve the efficiency of the motors, including the max tech model. Detailed information on the motor performance and the incremental manufacturing costs (e.g., material costs, labor costs, overhead costs (excluding depreciation), building conversion capital expenditures, tooling/equipment conversion capital expenditures associated with more efficient designs, R&D expenses, and marketing expenses) would be useful. Item 12 DOE welcomes comment from stakeholders on current prices for materials used in the construction of small electric motors. Item 14 DOE welcomes comment from stakeholders on which software tool is the best one to use for its engineering analysis, and why.

Page 2 of 4

### Issues for Comment

Item 13 DOE welcomes comment on the above-described approach to determining the relationship between manufacturer selling price and motor efficiency. Item 15 DOE welcomes comment on the markup approach proposed for developing estimates of manufacturer selling prices. Item 16 DOE welcomes comment on whether there are proprietary designs it should consider for any of the motor types under consideration in this rulemaking and, if so, how DOE should acquire the cost data necessary for evaluating these designs. 

### Item 17 DOE welcomes comment on whether there are outside issues that DOE should consider in its analysis of small electric motors. Item 18 DOE welcomes comment on whether there are small electric motor designs that are used for general purposes as well as for regulated appliances. Item 21 DOE welcomes comment on other engineering issues that could impact the engineering analysis. Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis [No Issues] 

### Markups for Equipment Price D etermination Item 22 DOE welcomes comment on the distribution chain for small electric motors, the key stakeholders in those distribution chains, the typical markups applied by those stakeholders, and the overall markup from manufacturer selling price to consumer retail price. The Department welcomes comment on the percentage of shipments by distribution chain, for each small electric motor type. 

### Energy Use & End Use Load Characterization Item 19 DOE welcomes recommendations on sources of data that would provide end-use operating profiles for each of the motor types covered under this rulemaking. Item 20 DOE welcomes comment on whether the end-use operating profiles are different for each of the motor types covered under this rulemaking, and if so, how? 

### Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Item 23 DOE welcomes input on the proposed methodology for estimating current and future electricity prices. Item 25 DOE welcomes comment on whether and how to develop maintenance, repair, and installation costs for small electric motors. Specifically DOE invites comment on how efficiency requirements may affect the ability of motor designs to fit in constrained spaces and configurations. Item 26 DOE welcomes comment on appropriate lifetimes for the small motor types covered in this rulemaking. Item 24 The Department welcomes input on the proposed approaches for estimating discount rates for consumers of small motors covered under this rulemaking.



### Page 3 of 4

### Issues for Comment

Shipments Analysis Item 27 DOE welcomes recommendations on sources of data that would provide information on shipments of small electric motors by different equipment classes and long-term trends in small electric motor shipments. 

### The Department welcomes input on the data needs and approaches for estimating small electric motor shipments. Item 28 The Department welcomes comment on the accounting methodology for each of the motor types covered in this rulemaking. Item 29 The Department welcomes comment on how any standard for small electric motors might impact shipments of these motors. DOE also invites information about market-pull programs that promote the adoption of more-efficient motors. 

### National Impact Analysis Item 30 The Department welcomes comment on the NES spreadsheet models used for estimating national impacts of small electric motor energy conservation standards. 

## 5. NOPR Analysis Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis Item 31 The Department welcomes comment on what, if any, consumer subgroups are appropriate in considering standards for small electric motors. 

### Manufacturer Impact Analysis Item 32 If appropriate, what are potential subgroups of motor manufacturers that DOE should consider in a manufacturer subgroup analysis? Item 33 DOE welcomes comment on what other regulations or pending regulations it should consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory burden. 

### Utility Impact Analysis Item 34 The Department welcomes input from stakeholders on its proposed use of NEMS-BT to conduct the utility impact analysis. 

### Employment Impact Analysis Item 35 The Department welcomes feedback on its proposed approach to assessing national employment impacts, both direct and indirect.


### Environmental Assessment Item 36 The Department welcomes feedback on its proposed approach to assessing environmental impacts, both direct and indirect. 

## 6. Closing Remarks [No Issues]



### Page 4 of 4