10-i

CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3

10.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS .....................................................................................5

10.2.1 National Energy Savings Overview.....................................................................................5

10.2.2 National Energy Savings Inputs.........................................................................................10

10.2.2.1 Motor Capacity ............................................................................................... 10

10.2.2.2 Annual Hours of Operation............................................................................. 10

10.2.2.3 Operating Load ............................................................................................... 10

10.2.2.4 Energy Efficiency ........................................................................................... 11

10.2.2.5 Lifetime Distribution ...................................................................................... 11

10.2.2.6 Electricity Site-to-primary Conversion Factors.............................................. 11

10.2.2.7 Electricity Primary-to-Full-Fuel-Cycle Conversion Factors .......................... 12

10.2.2.8 Base Case Shipment Efficiency Distribution.................................................. 13

10.2.3 Unit Annual Primary Energy Consumption.......................................................................14

10.2.4 Standards Case Shipment Efficiency Distribution.............................................................15

10.3 NET PRESENT VALUE...................................................................................................15

10.3.1 Net Present Value Overview..............................................................................................16

10.3.2 Net Present Value Inputs ...................................................................................................18

10.3.2.1 Manufacturer Selling Price and Price Overheads........................................... 18

10.3.2.2 Projection of Future Equipment Prices........................................................... 21

10.3.2.3 Motor Weight and Shipment Costs................................................................. 21

10.3.2.4 Repair Costs.................................................................................................... 23

10.3.2.5 Electricity Prices............................................................................................. 23

10.3.2.6 Discount Rate.................................................................................................. 23

10.3.3 Unit Lifetime Energy Cost.................................................................................................24

10.3.4 Unit Lifetime Non-Energy Costs.......................................................................................24

10.4 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................26

10.4.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value for Candidate Standard Levels.............26

10.4.2 Scenario Analysis...............................................................................................................33

10.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis ...........................................................................................................34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 10.2.1 Factors to Adjust Motor Initial Efficiency to its Efficiency after Repair ..............11

Table 10.2.2 Site-to-Primary and Primary-to-Full-Fuel-Cycle Conversion Factors ..................13

Table 10.2.3 Base Case Energy Efficiency Distributions...........................................................14

Table 10.3.1 Example of Manufacturer Selling Price Scaling Index Across Poles and 

Enclosures (Designs A and B motors, CSL 1).......................................................19

Table 10.3.2 Manufacturer Selling Price Scaling Equation Parameters across 

Horsepower............................................................................................................20
10-ii

Table 10.3.3 Example of Weight Scaling Index Across Poles and Enclosures (Designs 

A and B motors, CSL 1) ........................................................................................22

Table 10.3.4 Weight Scaling Equation Parameters across Horsepower.....................................23

Table 10.4.1 National Energy Savings for NEMA Designs A and B Motors (trillion 

Btu) ........................................................................................................................26

Table 10.4.2 Net Present Value for NEMA Designs A and B Motors (million 2011$).............27

Table 10.4.3 National Energy Savings for NEMA Design C Motors (trillion Btu) ...................28

Table 10.4.4 Net Present Value for NEMA Design C Motors (million 2011$).........................29

Table 10.4.5 National Energy Savings for Fire Pump Electric Motors (trillion Btu).................30

Table 10.4.6 Net Present Value for Fire Pump Electric Motors (million 2011$).......................31

Table 10.4.7 National Energy Savings Summary (quads)..........................................................32

Table 10.4.8 Net Present Value Summary (billion 2011$).........................................................33

Table 10.4.9 Net Present Value Summary for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 

(billion 2011$) .......................................................................................................33

Table 10.4.10 Net Present Value Summary for the High Economic Growth Scenario 

(billion 2011$) .......................................................................................................33

Table 10.4.11 National Energy Savings Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in 

Hours of Operation* (trillion Btu).........................................................................34

Table 10.4.12 Net Present Value Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in Hours 

of Operation* (million 2011$)...............................................................................34

Table 10.4.13 Net Present Value Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in 

Manufacturer Selling Price* (million 2011$)........................................................35

Table 10.4.14 Net Present Value Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in 

Repair Cost* (million 2011$) ................................................................................35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 10.2.1 National Impact Analysis Model Flowchart............................................................7

Figure 10.3.1 Example of Manufacturer Selling Price Scaling Equation across 

Horsepower............................................................................................................20
3

CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provides that any new or amended 

standard must be chosen so as to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible, economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. 

In determining whether economic justification exists, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

must determine whether the benefits of an energy efficiency standard exceed its burdens. Key 

factors in this decision are: the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard, and the savings in operating costs throughout the life of the 

covered equipment compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for or 

maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to result from the promulgation 

of the standard.

To satisfy this EPCA requirement and to more fully understand the national impact of 

potential efficiency regulations for electric motors, DOE conducted a national impact analysis

(NIA). This analysis assessed future national energy savings (NES) from electric motor energy 

conservation standards and the national economic impact using the net present value (NPV) 

metric.

This chapter describes the method used to estimate the national impacts of candidate 

standard levels (CSLs) for electric motors covered in this analysis. These electric motors have 

been categorized into three distinct equipment class groups: National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) Design A and B motors, NEMA Design C motors, and fire pump electric

motors. For each of these equipment class groups, and for each equipment class, DOE evaluated 

the following impacts: (1) NES attributable to each potential standard level, (2) monetary value 

of the lifetime energy savings to consumers of the considered equipment, (3) increased total 

lifetime cost of the equipment because of standards, and (4) NPV resulting from energy savings 

(the difference between the energy cost savings and the increased total lifetime cost of the 

equipment).

To conduct its NIA, DOE determined both the NES and NPV for each of the efficiency 

levels being considered as the new standard for electric motors. DOE performed all calculations 

for each considered equipment class group and equipment class using Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet models, which are accessible on the Internet.a Details and instructions for using the 

NIA model are provided in Appendix 10-A of the Technical Support Document (TSD). The 

spreadsheets combine the calculations for determining the NES and NPV for each considered 

equipment class group and equipment class with input from the appropriate shipments model that 

DOE used to project future purchases of the considered equipment. Chapter 9 provides a 

detailed description of the shipments models. 

 a See www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/
4

To calculate the national impacts of new standards for all equipment class groups

considered in this rulemaking DOE used scaling factors (described in Chapter 5 and section

10.3.2 below) to estimate equipment related costs and annual energy consumption for all 

equipment classes. DOE derived these factors from the engineering outputs for the eight

representative units.

Figure 10.2.1 presents a graphical flow diagram of the electric motor NIA spreadsheet 

model. In the diagram, the arrows show the direction of information flow for the calculation. 

The information begins with inputs (shown as parallelograms). As information flows from these 

inputs, it is integrated into intermediate results (shown as rectangles) into major outputs (shown 

as boxes with curved bottom edges). 

The NIA calculation started with the shipments model. This model produces a projection

of annual shipments of motors. DOE used the annual projection of such shipments to produce an 

accounting of annual national energy savings, annual national energy cost savings, and annual 

national incremental non-energy costs resulting from purchasing, installing and operating the 

units projected to be shipped in each year of the analysis period during their estimated lifetime. 

The annual values, therefore, refer to the lifetime, cumulative energy related savings and nonenergy related additional costs associated to the units marketed in each year of the analysis 

period.

To calculate the annual national energy savings, DOE first estimated the lifetime primary

and fuel-fuel-cycleb (FFC) energy consumption at the unit level for each equipment class, and 

for each year in the analysis period. The unit’s lifetime primary and FFC energy consumptions

were then scaled up to the national level based on the annual shipments projection. The primary

and FFC national energy consumptions were then evaluated, each one, for two scenarios: the 

base case scenario, with no changes in the existing energy efficiency standards; and (b) the 

standards case scenario, where energy efficiency standards are set at the energy efficiency level 

corresponding to one of the CSLs. This produced, for each equipment class, two sets of two 

streams of annual national energy consumption, from which DOE derived two streams of annual 

national energy savings: one that accounts for primary energy savings, and one that accounts for 

the FFC energy savings. The annual national primary and FFC energy savings of all equipment 

classes within an equipment class group were, each one, aggregated over the full analysis period 

into national energy primary and FFC savings by equipment class group. DOE then summed the 

aggregated national primary and FFC energy savings to produce the primary and FFC NESs of 

all equipment class groups.

c

DOE followed a similar procedure to calculate the annual national energy cost savings 

and the annual national incremental non-energy costs. DOE first estimated the lifetime energy 

cost and the lifetime non-energy costs at unit level for each equipment class within each 

 b The full-fuel-cycle energy consumption adds to the primary energy consumption the energy consumed by the 

energy supply chain upstream to power plants. 

c Because not all equipment class groups are classified into the same number of CSLs: (a) results for CSL 4 

aggregates the results from Design A and B and from fire pump electric motors at CSL 4 with those estimated for 

Design C at CSL 3; and (b) results for CSL 5 aggregates the results from Design A and B at CSL 5 with those from 

fire pump electric motors at CSL 4 and Design C at CSL 3.
5

equipment class group, and for each year in the analysis period. The units lifetime energy and 

non-energy costs, for each year in the analysis period, were then scaled up to the national level 

based on the annual shipments projection and for the same—base case and standards case—

scenarios. This produced, for each equipment class: (a) two streams of annual national energy 

costs, from which DOE derived a stream of annual national energy cost savings and its 

corresponding present-value, and (b) two streams of annual national non-energy costs, from 

which DOE derived a stream of annual national incremental equipment non-energy costs and its 

corresponding present-value. The present-values of the annual national energy cost savings and 

the annual national incremental non-energy costs of all equipment classes within an equipment 

class group were aggregated over the full analysis period, respectively, into national energy cost 

savings and national incremental non-energy costs by equipment class group. DOE then 

calculated the difference between the aggregated national energy cost savings and national 

incremental non-energy costs, and aggregated these values across equipment class groups to 

produce the NPV.

c

Two models included in the NIA are provided below—the NES model in section 10.2, 

and the NPV model in section 10.3. Each technical description begins with a summary of the 

model. It then provides a descriptive overview of how DOE performed each model’s 

calculations and follows with a summary of the inputs. The final subsections of each technical 

description describe each of the major inputs and computation steps in detail and with equations, 

when appropriate. After the technical model descriptions, this chapter presents the results of the 

NIA calculations.

10.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

DOE developed the NES model to estimate the total national primary and FFC energy 

savings using information from the life-cycle cost (LCC) relative to energy consumption, 

combined with the results from the shipments model. The savings shown in the NES reflect 

decreased energy losses resulting from the installation of more efficient electric motors

nationwide, in comparison to a base case with no changes in the current national standards. 

Positive values of NES correspond to net energy savings, that is, a decrease in energy 

consumption after implementation of a standard in comparison to the energy consumption in the 

base case scenario.

10.2.1 National Energy Savings Overview

DOE calculated the cumulative primary and FFC energy savings from an electric motor 

efficiency standard, relative to a base case scenario of no standard, over the analysis period. It 

calculated NES for each candidate standard level, in units of quadrillion British thermal units 

(Btus) (quads), for standards that will be effective in the year 2015. The NES calculation started 

with estimates of shipments, which are outputs of the shipments model (Chapter 9). DOE then 

obtained estimates of electric motor parameters from the LCC analysis (Chapter 8), projections 

of site-to-primary conversion factors

d from the Annual Energy Outlook6 (AEO) and projections

 d The site-to-primary factors account for electricity generation, transmission and distribution losses.
6

of primary-to-FFC conversion factorse from a NEMS-based methodology (Appendix 10-C), and 

calculated the market average of the total primary and FFC energy used by the units shipped in 

each year over their lifetime, for both a base case and a standards case. Since in the standards 

case part of the units shipped is more efficient than its corresponding in the base case, the 

average energy consumed per unit decreases in the standards case relative to the base case. For 

each year analyzed, the lifetime primary and FFC energy savings from all motors of a given 

capacity and configuration (combination of enclosure and number of poles), shipped in that year,

are the differences in their primary and FFC energy use between the corresponding base case and 

the standards case scenarios.

 e The primary-to-FFC factors account for the energy consumption in the supply chain of the fuels used for electricity 

generation.
7

 Figure 10.2.1 National Impact Analysis Model Flowchart

National

Costs

National 

Energy Cost

Natl Energy 

Consumption

Hours of 

Operation

Load

Probability

of Survival

Efficiency 

Conservation

Factor

Full Load 

Efficiency

Load 

Adjustment 

Factor

Base Case 

Efficiency 

Distribution

Heat 

Rates

Efficiency

at Load

Unit Lifetime

Energy 

Consumption

National Energy 

Consumption

Unit Lifetime

Energy Cost

Electricity

Prices

Electricity 

Price Scalar

National 

Energy Cost

National 

Energy

Cost Savings

Manufacturer

Selling Price

Weight

Shipping

Rate

Price

Overheads

Repair 

Cost

Repair 

Events

Probability

of Survival

Lifetime

Repair Cost

Shipping Cost

Unit Lifetime

Non -Energy 

Costs

Base Case 

Efficiency 

Distribution

National

Non -Energy

Costs

National

Incremental

Non-Energy Costs

NPV

Standards Case 

Efficiency

Distribution

Standards Case 

Efficiency

Distribution

Shipments Base case - Standards case

Standards case - Base case

Base case - Standards case

NES NES
8

This calculation is expressed by the following formulas:

Lifetime Primary Energy Savings

nSEShp,g(y) = ∑ ∑ �nSrcECbchp,g(s, a, y) − nSECsthp,g s a (s, a, y)� Eq. 10.1

nSECbchp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uSEChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Mbchp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.2

nSECstdhp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uSEChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Mstdhp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.3

uSEChp,g,c(s, a, y) = ∑ aSEChp,g,c(s, a, y, i) i=1..LT Eq. 10.4

where:

nSEShp,g(y) = the lifetime primary energy savings of all motors with capacity hp

and configuration g shipped in year y,

nSECbchp,g(s, a, y) = the base case, lifetime primary energy consumption of motors with 

capacity hp and configuration g shipped in year y to be used in 

application a in sector s,

nSECstdhp,g(s, a, y) = the standards case, lifetime primary energy consumption of motors 

with capacity hp and configuration g shipped in year y to be used in 

application a in sector s,

Shphp,g(s, y) = the number of motors with capacity hp and configuration g shipped in 

year y to sector s,

A(a) = the probability of a motor to be used in application a,

uSEChp,g,c(s, a, y) = the lifetime primary energy consumption of a unit with capacity hp, 

configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y to be 

used in application a in sector s,

aSEChp,g,c(s, a, y, i) = the annual primary energy consumption in the i-th year of operation 

of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency level at CSL 

c, shipped in year y to be used in application a in sector s,

Mbchp,c(y) = the base case market share of units with capacity hp, configuration g

and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y, and

Mstdhp,c(y) = the standards case market share of units with capacity hp, 

configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y.

Lifetime Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings

nFEShp,g(y) = ∑ ∑ �nFECbchp,g(s, a, y) − nFECsthp,g s a (s, a, y)� Eq. 10.5

nFECbchp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uFEChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Mbchp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.6
9

nFECstdhp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uFEChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Mstdhp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.7

uFEChp,g,c(s, a, y) = ∑ �aSEChp,g,c i=1..LT (s, a, y, i) ∙ ffc(y + i − 1)� Eq. 10.8

where:

nFEShp,g(y) = the lifetime FFC energy savings of all motors with capacity hp and 

configuration g shipped in year y,

nFECbchp,g(s, a, y) = the base case, lifetime FFC energy consumption of motors with 

capacity hp and configuration g shipped in year y to be used in 

application a in sector s,

nFECstdhp,g(s, a, y) = the standards case, lifetime FFC energy consumption of motors with 

capacity hp and configuration g shipped in year y to be used in 

application a in sector s,

Shphp,g(s, y) = the number of motors with capacity hp and configuration g shipped in 

year y to sector s,

A(a) = the probability of a motor to be used in application a,

uFEChp,g,c(s, a, y) = the lifetime FFC energy consumption of a unit with capacity hp, 

configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y to be 

used in application a in sector s,

aSEChp,g,c(s, a, y, i) = the annual primary energy consumption in the i-th year of operation 

of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency level at CSL 

c, shipped in year y to be used in application a in sector s,

ffc(y) = the primary-to-FFC conversion factor in year y, 

Mbchp,c(y) = the base case market share of units with capacity hp, configuration g

and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y, and

Mstdhp,c(y) = the standards case market share of units with capacity hp, 

configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y.

DOE used the lifetime primary and FFC energy savings estimated for all motors shipped 

from 2015 through 2044 to calculate the total primary NES (NESsrc) and the total FFC NES 

(NESFFC) for the analysis period. The calculation used the following formulas: 

NESsrc = � � � nSEShp,g(y)

2044

hp g y=2015

Eq. 10.9

NESFFC = � � � nFEShp,g(y)

2044

hp g y=2015

Eq. 10.10

where:

nSEShp,g(y) = the lifetime primary energy savings of all motors with capacity hp and 

configuration g shipped in year y, and
10

nFEShp,g(y) = the lifetime FFC energy savings of all motors with capacity hp and 

configuration g shipped in year y.

Once the shipments model provides the estimate of shipments and the primary-to-FFC 

factors convert primary energy consumption into FFC energy consumption, the key to the NES 

calculation is in calculating the unit annual primary energy consumption and market share 

distributions using inputs from the LCC analysis. The next section summarizes the inputs 

necessary for the NES calculation and then presents them individually; the following sections

detail, respectively, how the unit lifetime primary energy consumption and the standards case 

efficiency distribution were calculated.

10.2.2 National Energy Savings Inputs

The NES model inputs include: (a) the parameters necessary to the unit energy 

consumption calculation, (b) the site-to-primary conversion factors, which enable the calculation 

of primary energy consumption from site energy use, and (c) shipment efficiency distributions in 

the base case. The list of NES model inputs is as follows:

1. motor capacity;

2. annual hours of operation;

3. operating load;

4. energy efficiency (at the operating load, and including efficiency adjustment due to 

repairs);

5. lifetime (probability) distribution;

6. electricity site-to-primary conversion factors;

7. electricity primary-to-FFC conversion factors, and

8. base case shipments efficiency distribution.

10.2.2.1 Motor Capacity

The motor capacity refers to the unit horsepower (hp) rating converted to kilowatts (kW)

using the following conversion factor: 1 hp = 0.7457 kW.

10.2.2.2 Annual Hours of Operation

For the NIA, DOE considered the average annual hours of operation by sector, 

application and horsepower ranges described in Chapter 7, Section 7.2.6.

10.2.2.3 Operating Load

For the NIA, DOE considered the average operating load by application described in 

Chapter 7, Section 7.2.5.
11

10.2.2.4 Energy Efficiency

For the NIA, DOE considered the energy efficiencies by CSL presented in chapter 5. 

Those efficiencies, however, refer to motors performance when operating at full load. Since 

motors usually do not operate at full load, DOE adjusted the full load efficiencies to the part-load 

levels corresponding to the motors’ weighted average operating load across applications, based 

on part load efficiency data from the engineering analysis (Chapter 5). Additionally, DOE 

assumed that: (a) motors are repaired on average after 32,000 hours of operationf; (b) repair costs

vary depending on motor size, configuration, and efficiency; and (c) some motors have a slight 

decrease in their energy efficiency after undergoing a repair. (See Chapter 8, Section 8.2.2.1 for 

more details.) To account for the effects of repair on the energy efficiency of motors, DOE used 

a time-varying adjusting factor that reduces the initial motor efficiency over its lifetime (see

Table 10.2.1).

g

Table 10.2.1 Factors to Adjust Motor Initial Efficiency to its Efficiency after Repair

Year of Operation < 40 hp ≥ 40 hp

1-5 1.00000 1.00000

6-10 0.99333 0.99667

11-15 0.98671 0.99334

16-20 0.98013 0.99003

21-25 0.97360 0.98673

26-30 0.96711 0.98344

10.2.2.5 Lifetime Distribution

For the NIA, DOE uses motor average lifetime in years derived from motor mechanical 

lifetime in hours (see Chapter 8, Section 8.2.3) and from annual operating hours (see Section 

10.2.2.2).

10.2.2.6 Electricity Site-to-primary Conversion Factors

The site-to-primary conversion factor for electricity is the factor by which site energy (in

kilowatt-hours (kWh)) is multiplied to obtain primary (source) energy (in Btu). Since the NES

estimates the change in energy use of the resource (e.g., the power plant), this conversion factor

is necessary to account for losses in generation, transmission, and distribution. After calculating

energy consumption at the site of its use for the base case and the standards case, DOE 

multiplied these values by the conversion factor to obtain the primary energy consumption in 

each scenario and then calculated the corresponding savings, expressed in quads. This 

 f Based on the annual operating hours by sector and application, this corresponds, on average, to a repair frequency 

of 5, 16, and 15 years in the industrial, commercial and agricultural sectors, respectively.

g Notwithstanding, DOE understands that the Electrical Apparatus Service Association (EASA) commented that a 

comprehensive study has been done by EASA and the Association of Electrical and Mechanical Trades to 

investigate the effect of repair and rewind on electric motor efficiency. EASA commented that the study showed that 

electric motor efficiency could be maintained by following the good practices identified in the study. (EASA, No.7 

at pp. 1-2) Both EASA Standard AR100-2010 and the EASA/AEMT Rewind Study are available at 

http://www.easa.com/. 
12

conversion permitted comparison across (source) fuels by taking into account the heat content of 

different fuels and the efficiency of different energy conversion processes. The annual 

conversion factor values are the U.S. averages for electricity generation for base load. DOE

obtained these conversion factors using a variant of the National Energy Modeling System

(NEMS)7, called NEMS-BT.h Table 10.2.2 presents the average annual conversion factors DOE 

used.

10.2.2.7 Electricity Primary-to-Full-Fuel-Cycle Conversion Factors

DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. On August 18, 

2011, DOE announced its intention to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and 

greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. (76 FR 51282) While DOE stated 

in that notice that it intended to use the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy 

Use in Transportation (GREET) model to conduct the analysis, it also said it would review 

alternative methods, including the use of NEMS. After evaluating both models and the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE has determined NEMS is a more 

appropriate tool for this specific use. Therefore, DOE intends to use the NEMS model, rather 

than the GREET model, to conduct future FFC analyses.For this preliminary analysis DOE used 

the methodology described in Appendix 10-C to calculate the primary-to-FFC conversion factors 

presented in Table 10.2.2.

 h For more information on NEMS, refer to Energy Information Administration (EIA) at http://www.eia.gov/ . A 

useful summary is the “National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2003.5” EIA approved use of the name 

NEMS to describe only an official version of the model without any modification to code or data. However, the 

analysis for electric motors entailed some minor code modifications and the model run under policy scenarios that

are variations on EIA assumptions. Consequently, the abbreviation “NEMS-BT” refers to the model as used by 

DOE’s Building Technologies (BT) Program.
13

Table 10.2.2 Site-to-Primary and Primary-to-Full-Fuel-Cycle Conversion Factors

Year

Conversion Factors

Site-toPrimary

(Btu/kWh)

Primary-toFFC

(quad/quad)

2015 6448.1 1.05853

2016 6443.3 1.05781

2017 6432.7 1.05776

2018 6426.7 1.05747

2019 6424.7 1.05705

2020 6435.6 1.05630

2021 6467.8 1.05516

2022 6482.8 1.05493

2023 6506.5 1.05456

2024 6533.7 1.05387

2025 6533.9 1.05363

2026 6537.5 1.05344

2027 6552.1 1.05349

2028 6555.0 1.05378

2029 6551.4 1.05408

2030 6548.0 1.05452

2031 6551.8 1.05474

2032 6551.1 1.05482

2033 6548.5 1.05498

2034 6550.0 1.05528

2035 6561.1 1.05535

2036-2044 6561.1 1.05535

10.2.2.8 Base Case Shipment Efficiency Distribution

To estimate market averages for unit energy consumption, DOE used statistical 

distributions of shipments across CSLs. For the base case, DOE developed such distributions 

from a database which DOE built upon data collected from internet catalogs from six major 

manufacturers and one large distributor (see Table 10.2.4), and considered those distributions to 

remain constant over the analysis period.
14

Table 10.2.3 Base Case Energy Efficiency Distributions

Market Share in 2015

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B Electric Motors

1-5 hp 5.5% 38.4% 44.4% 7.6% 3.0% 1.1%

6-20 hp 4.7% 35.3% 44.3% 8.7% 6.1% 0.8%

21-50 hp 5.3% 30.3% 47.8% 8.8% 7.9% 0.0%

51-100 hp 5.4% 28.6% 48.4% 10.1% 5.0% 2.5%

101-200 hp 5.4% 23.3% 53.9% 12.0% 4.8% 0.6%

201-500 hp 11.2% 49.9% 32.0% 5.9% 0.9% 0.0%

NEMA Design C Electric Motors

1-5 hp 92.3% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% - -

6-20 hp 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - -

21-50 hp 73.3% 26.7% 0.0% 0.0% - -

51-100 hp 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% - -

101-200 hp 47.8% 30.4% 21.7% 0.0% - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors

1-5 hp 94.9% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -

6-20 hp 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -

21-50 hp 81.7% 5.5% 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% -

51-100 hp 80.6% 2.0% 17.3% 0.0% 0.0% -

101-200 hp 73.5% 17.6% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% -

201-500 hp 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -

10.2.3 Unit Annual Primary Energy Consumption

The unit annual primary energy consumption expresses an estimate of the amount of 

primary energy that a motor of a given equipment class, meeting the efficiency level of a given 

CSL, and shipped in a given year to a given sector to be used in a given application will consume 

in each year of its lifetime. It refers to the variable aSEChp,g,c in Eq. 10.4 and Eq. 10.8, and is 

evaluated from the following formulas:

aSEChp,g,c(s, a, y, i) = UEChp,g,c(s, a, i) ∙ Ohp(s, i) ∙ StoS(y + i − 1) Eq. 10.11

UEChp,g,c(s, a, i) = (hp × 0.757) ∙ Load(a) ∙ Hourshp(s, a)

fEffc ∙ aEffhp,c(a) ∙ Conserv(i) Eq. 10.12

where:

aSEChp,g,c(s, a, y, i) = the annual primary energy consumption in the i-th year of operation of 

a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c

shipped in year y to be used in application a in sector s,

UEChp,g,c(s, a, i) = the annual site energy consumption in the i-th year of operation of a 

unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c

used for application a in sector s,
15

StoS(t) = the site-to-primary conversion factor projected to year t,

Ohp(s, i) = the probability that a unit with capacity hp, used in sector s will be in 

operation in the i-th year of its lifetime, 

hp = the unit capacity (in horse-power),

Load(a) = the typical load of a motor used in application a,

Hourshp(s, a) = annual hours of operation of a unit with capacity hp, used for 

application a in sector s, 

fEffc = the full-load efficiency of a unit with efficiency level at CSL c, 

aEffhp,c(a) = the factor used to adjust the full-load efficiency of a unit with capacity 

hp and efficiency level at CSL c used in application a to the efficiency 

corresponding to its typical load, and

Conserv(i) = the energy efficiency conservation factor used to reduce the unit initial 

efficiency to the efficiency it is estimated to present in its i-th year of

operation due to repairs.

10.2.4 Standards Case Shipment Efficiency Distribution

Section 10.2.2.8 described the market efficiency distribution across CSLs that DOE used 

for the base case scenario. For the standards case, DOE relied on the base case distribution and 

calculated the efficiency distributions from the following expression (roll-up scenario approach):

Mstdhp,c = �

0, c < c∗

∑ Mbchp,j c∗

j=1 , c = c∗

Mbchp,c, c > c∗

Eq. 10.13

where:

Mstdhp,c(y) = the standards case market share of units with capacity hp and efficiency 

level at CSL c shipped in year y,

Mbchp,c(y) = the base case market share of units with capacity hp and efficiency level at CSL 

c shipped in year y, and

c∗ = the selected CSL.

10.3 NET PRESENT VALUE

DOE estimated the national financial impact on consumers from the imposition of new

energy efficiency standards using a national NPV accounting component in the national impact

spreadsheet. DOE combined the output of the shipments model with energy and financial data 

from the LCC analysis to calculate an annual stream of costs and benefits resulting from 

candidate electric motors energy efficiency standards. It discounted this time series to the year

2012 and summed the result, yielding the national NPV.
16

10.3.1 Net Present Value Overview

The NPV is the present value of the incremental economic impact of a candidate standard

level. Like the NES, the NPV calculation started with motor shipments, estimates of which are 

outputs from the shipments model. DOE then obtained motor input data and average electricity 

costs from the LCC analysis, and estimated motor non-energy and energy lifetime costs. For 

both a base case and a standards case, DOE first calculated the amount spent on motor purchases

and lifetime repairs,

i

and then calculated the lifetime energy cost by applying the average

electricity prices to the electricity used by motors shipped at each year of the analysis period over 

their lifetime. In the standards case, more expensive yet more efficient units replace the less

efficient ones. Thus, in the standards case, the market average lifetime energy cost per unit is 

lower relative to the base case, while the lifetime equipment non-energy costs are greater. When 

the energy cost decrease outweighs the non-energy costs increase, the standards have a positive 

impact on consumers; otherwise, the standards impact is negative.

DOE discounted the non-energy and energy expenses with motors using a national 

average discount factor. The discount factor converts a future expense to a present value. The 

difference in present value of the non-energy and energy expenses between the base case and the 

standards case scenarios leads to the national NPV impact. DOE calculated the NPV impact in 

2012 from motors that were purchased between the effective date of the standard and 2044, 

inclusive, to calculate the total NPV impact from purchases during the analysis period.

Mathematically, the NPV is the value in the present time of a time series of costs and savings, 

described by the equation:

NPV = PVS − PVC Eq. 10.14

where:

PVS = the present value of electricity cost savings, and

PVC = the present value of incremental non-energy costs.

PVS and PVC are determined according to the following expressions:

PVS = � � � nECShp,g(y) ∙ (1 + r)2012−y

2044

hp g y=2015

Eq. 10.15

nECShp,g(y) = ∑ ∑ �nNCbchp,g(s, a, y) − nNCsthp,g s a (s, a, y)� Eq. 10.16

nNCbchp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uNChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Mbchp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.17

 i

DOE did not account for installation costs and maintenance costs. Although these costs might have significant 

impacts on a user’s budget, they do not vary with the efficiency level of the motor and therefore would have no 

impact in the difference of non-energy costs between the base case and the standards case scenarios.
17

nNCsthp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uNChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Msthp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.18

and:

PVS = � � � nIEChp,g(y) × (1 + r)2012−y

2044

hp g y=2015

Eq. 10.19

nIEChp,g(y) = ∑ ∑ �nQCbchp,g(s, a, y) − nQCsthp,g s a (s, a, y)� Eq. 10.20

nQCbchp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uQChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Mbchp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.21

nQCsthp,g(s, a, y) = Shphp,g(s, y) ∙ A(a) ∙ ∑ �uQChp,g,c(s, a, y) ∙ Msthp,c c (y)� Eq. 10.22

where:

nECShp,g(y) = the lifetime energy cost savings of all motors shipped in year y,

nNCbchp,g(s, a, y) = the base case, lifetime energy cost of all motors shipped in year y,

nNCsthp,g(s, a, y) = the standards case, lifetime energy cost of all motors shipped in year y,

uNChp,g,c(s, a, y) = the lifetime energy cost of a unit with efficiency level at CSL c

shipped in year y,

nIECShp,g(y) = the lifetime incremental equipment non-energy costs of all motors 

shipped in year y,

nQCbchp,g(s, a, y) = the base case, lifetime equipment non-energy costs of all motors 

shipped in year y,

nQCsthp,g(s, a, y) = the standards case, lifetime equipment non-energy costs of all motors 

shipped in year y,

uQChp,g,c(s, a, y) = the lifetime equipment non-energy costs of a unit with efficiency level 

at CSL c shipped in year y,

Shphp,g(s, y) = the number of motors with capacity hp and configuration g shipped in 

year y to sector s,

Mbchp,c(y) = the base case market share of units with capacity hp, configuration g

and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y, and

Msthp,c(y) = the standards case market share of units with capacity hp, 

configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y, and

r = the discount rate.

Once the shipments model provides the estimate of shipments, the following sections 

describe the inputs necessary for the NPV calculation and detail how unit lifetime energy and 

non-energy costs are calculated.
18

10.3.2 Net Present Value Inputs

The NPV model inputs include: (a) the parameters that help calculate the unit energy 

consumption, (b) the electricity prices that enable the calculation of energy costs, (c) equipment 

first- and non-energy operating costs, and (d) shipment efficiency distributions for the base case. 

The list of NPV model inputs is as follows:

1. motor capacity;

2. annual hours of operation;

3. operating load;

4. energy efficiency (at the operating load, and including efficiency degradation due to 

repairs);

5. manufacturer selling price (MSP) and price overheads;

6. motor weight and shipment costs;

7. repair costs;

8. lifetime (probability) distribution;

9. electricity price;

10. discount rate;

11. base case shipments efficiency distribution.

Inputs 1-4, 8 and 11 have already been introduced in Section 10.2.2 and therefore are not 

described in this section.

10.3.2.1 Manufacturer Selling Price and Price Overheads

The Engineering Analysis, chapter 5 provides MSP data for eight representative units. 

DOE developed scaling relationships to estimate MSP for all covered equipment classes. 

For each CSL, DOE first established an index to describe how MSP varies by pole and 

enclosure across horsepower ratings. DOE established these indices using statistical estimates 

derived from a database of motor prices which DOE built upon data collected from internet 

catalogs from six major manufacturers and one large distributor (see Table 10.3.1 for an example 

of these indices estimated for Designs A and B motors, CSL 1.).
19

Table 10.3.1 Example of Manufacturer Selling Price Scaling Index Across Poles and 

Enclosures (Designs A and B motors, CSL 1)

Enclosed Open

hp 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles 8 poles 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles 8 poles

1 0.9729 1.0000 1.0271 1.0543 0.9215 0.9487 0.9758 1.0030

1.5 0.9623 1.0000 1.0377 1.0753 0.8911 0.9288 0.9665 1.0041

2 0.9533 1.0000 1.0467 1.0934 0.8650 0.9117 0.9584 1.0051

3 0.9385 1.0000 1.0615 1.1230 0.8222 0.8837 0.9452 1.0067

5 0.9177 1.0000 1.0823 1.1647 0.7620 0.8443 0.9266 1.0090

7.5 0.9009 1.0000 1.0991 1.1983 0.7134 0.8125 0.9117 1.0108

10 0.8896 1.0000 1.1104 1.2208 0.6809 0.7912 0.9016 1.0120

15 0.8755 1.0000 1.1245 1.2491 0.6399 0.7645 0.8890 1.0136

20 0.8669 1.0000 1.1331 1.2662 0.6153 0.7484 0.8814 1.0145

25 0.8612 1.0000 1.1388 1.2776 0.5988 0.7376 0.8764 1.0151

30 0.8571 1.0000 1.1429 1.2857 0.5870 0.7299 0.8727 1.0156

40 0.8517 1.0000 1.1483 1.2966 0.5712 0.7196 0.8679 1.0162

50 0.8482 1.0000 1.1518 1.3036 0.5612 0.7130 0.8648 1.0166

60 0.8458 1.0000 1.1542 1.3084 0.5542 0.7084 0.8626 1.0168

75 0.8433 1.0000 1.1567 1.3134 0.5470 0.7037 0.8604 1.0171

100 0.8407 1.0000 1.1593 1.3185 0.5396 0.6989 0.8581 1.0174

125 0.8392 1.0000 1.1608 1.3217 0.5350 0.6959 0.8567 1.0175

150 0.8381 1.0000 1.1619 1.3238 0.5319 0.6939 0.8558 1.0177

200 0.8367 1.0000 1.1633 1.3265 0.5280 0.6913 0.8545 1.0178

250 0.8359 1.0000 1.1641 1.3282 0.5256 0.6897 0.8538 1.0179

300 0.8354 1.0000 1.1646 1.3293 0.5240 0.6887 0.8533 1.0180

350 0.8350 1.0000 1.1650 1.3301 0.5229 0.6879 0.8530 1.0180

400 0.8347 1.0000 1.1653 1.3307 0.5220 0.6873 0.8527 1.0180

450 0.8344 1.0000 1.1656 1.3312 0.5213 0.6869 0.8525 1.0181

500 0.8342 1.0000 1.1658 1.3315 0.5208 0.6865 0.8523 1.0181

For each equipment class group and CSL level, using the MSP from the engineering 

analysis, DOE developed an equation to scale the MSP of a 4-pole enclosed motor across motor 

horsepower. The relations derived from power law regressions, with 0.981< R2

< 0.999, are 

expressed by the following equation:

MSP4,e(hp) = a. (hp)b Eq. 10.23

where:

MSP4,e(hp) = the MSP of a 4-pole enclosed unit with capacity hp, and

a and b = parameters calibrated by equipment class group and CSL.
20

Table 10.3.2 provides a and b values for all CSLs by equipment class group. As 

mentioned in Chapter 5, the MSPs of fire pump electric motors are the same as the ones used for 

NEMA Designs A and B motors.

Table 10.3.2 Manufacturer Selling Price Scaling Equation Parameters across 

Horsepower

NEMA Design A and B motors, and fire pump electric motors

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

a 1.133E+02 1.110E+02 1.237E+02 1.256E+02 1.806E+02 2.001E+02

b 6.241E-01 6.657E-01 6.702E-01 6.853E-01 6.826E-01 6.825E-01

NEMA Design C motors

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

a 1.133E+02 1.20E+02 1.98E+02 2.11E+02 - -

b 6.52E-01 6.70E-01 5.93E-01 5.97E-01 - -

Figure 10.3.1 shows an example of the scaling relations across horsepower for NEMA 

Designs A and B motors and fire pump electric motors.

Figure 10.3.1 Example of Manufacturer Selling Price Scaling Equation across 

Horsepower 

Using the scaling relations across horsepower, DOE estimated the MSP for 4 poles 

enclosed motors at each CSL, for each equipment class group and all horsepower ratings. DOE

then used the index presented in Table 10.3.1 to obtain MSP estimates for all equipment classes. 

The final MSP estimates are available in the NIA spreadsheet.

y = 123.72x0.6702

R2 = 0.9998

y = 125.58x0.6853

R2 = 0.998

y = 180.63x0.6826

R2 = 0.9991

y = 200.11x0.6825

R2 = 0.9991

y = 110.95x0.6657

R2 = 0.9995

y = 113.25x0.6241

R2 = 0.9812

-

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

4,000 

4,500 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

MSP (2010$)

Horsepower

NEMA Designs A and B Electric Motors, and Fire Pump Electric Motors 

(4 poles, enclosed)

CSL 2 (FP CSL 1)

CSL 3 (FP CSL 2)

CSL 4 (FP CSL 3)

CSL 5 (FP CSL 4)

CSL 1 (FP CSL 0)

CSL 0

Power (CSL 2 (FP CSL 1))

Power (CSL 3 (FP CSL 2))

Power (CSL 4 (FP CSL 3))

Power (CSL 5 (FP CSL 4))

Power (CSL 1 (FP CSL 0))

Power (CSL 0)
21

In the NIA, an average baseline and incremental markup are applied to derive equipment

prices from the MSPs. Chapter 6 provides more details on the markups calculation.

10.3.2.2 Projection of Future Equipment Prices

For reasons discussed in chapter 8 of the TSD (section 8.2.1.1), DOE used a constant

price assumption for the default projection in the NIA. To investigate the impact of different 

equipment price projections on the consumer net present value (NPV) for the considered CSLs 

for electric motors, DOE also considered two alternative price trends. One of these used an 

exponential fit on the deflated price index for electric motors, and the other is based on 

AEO2011’s projected price index for industrial equipment. Details on how these alternative 

price trends were developed are in Appendix 10-B, which also presents the results of the 

sensitivity analysis.

10.3.2.3 Motor Weight and Shipment Costs

DOE used the same methodology described in section 10.3.2.1 to derive weight data for 

all covered equipment classes based on outputs from the engineering analysis, chapter 5.

For each CSL, DOE established an index to describe how motor weight varies by pole 

and enclosure across horsepower ratings. DOE established these indices using statistical 

estimates derived from a database of motor weights which DOE built upon data collected from 

internet catalogs from six major manufacturers and one large distributor (see Table 10.3.3 for an 

example of these indices estimated for Designs A and B motors, CSL 1.).
22

Table 10.3.3 Example of Weight Scaling Index Across Poles and Enclosures (Designs 

A and B motors, CSL 1)

Enclosed Open

hp 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles 8 poles 2 poles 4 poles 6 poles 8 poles

1 0.977 1.000 1.023 1.045 0.936 0.958 0.981 1.003 

1.5 0.968 1.000 1.032 1.063 0.910 0.941 0.973 1.005 

2 0.960 1.000 1.040 1.080 0.887 0.926 0.966 1.006 

3 0.947 1.000 1.053 1.107 0.848 0.901 0.955 1.008 

5 0.926 1.000 1.074 1.148 0.790 0.864 0.938 1.011 

7.5 0.909 1.000 1.091 1.182 0.741 0.832 0.923 1.014 

10 0.897 1.000 1.103 1.206 0.707 0.810 0.913 1.016 

15 0.881 1.000 1.119 1.238 0.662 0.781 0.899 1.018 

20 0.871 1.000 1.129 1.257 0.634 0.762 0.891 1.020 

25 0.865 1.000 1.135 1.271 0.615 0.750 0.885 1.021 

30 0.860 1.000 1.140 1.280 0.601 0.741 0.881 1.021 

40 0.853 1.000 1.147 1.294 0.582 0.729 0.876 1.022 

50 0.849 1.000 1.151 1.302 0.570 0.721 0.872 1.023 

60 0.846 1.000 1.154 1.308 0.561 0.715 0.869 1.024 

75 0.843 1.000 1.157 1.314 0.552 0.710 0.867 1.024 

100 0.840 1.000 1.160 1.321 0.543 0.704 0.864 1.025 

125 0.838 1.000 1.162 1.325 0.537 0.700 0.862 1.025 

150 0.836 1.000 1.164 1.328 0.534 0.697 0.861 1.025 

200 0.834 1.000 1.166 1.331 0.529 0.694 0.860 1.025 

250 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.333 0.526 0.692 0.859 1.025 

300 0.833 1.000 1.167 1.335 0.524 0.691 0.858 1.026 

350 0.832 1.000 1.168 1.336 0.522 0.690 0.858 1.026 

400 0.832 1.000 1.168 1.337 0.521 0.689 0.857 1.026 

450 0.831 1.000 1.169 1.337 0.520 0.689 0.857 1.026 

500 0.831 1.000 1.169 1.338 0.519 0.688 0.857 1.026 

For each CSL level and equipment class group, using the weight data from the 

engineering analysis, DOE developed an equation to scale the weight of a 4-pole enclosed motor 

by horsepower. The relationships, derived from power law regressions (0.992< R2< 0.999), are

expressed by the following equations:

Weight4,e(hp) = a′. (hp)b′Eq. 10.24

where:

Weight4,e(hp) = the weight of a 4-pole enclosed unit with capacity hp, and

a' and b' = parameters calibrated by equipment class group and CSL.
23

Table 10.3.4 below provides a' and b' values for all CSLs by equipment class group. As 

mentioned in Chapter 5, the weights of fire pump electric motors are the same as the ones used 

for NEMA Designs A and B motors.

Table 10.3.4 Weight Scaling Equation Parameters across Horsepower

NEMA Designs A and B motors, and Fire Pump Electric Motors

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

a’ 2.285E+01 2.215E+01 2.878E+01 2.720E+01 3.352E+01 3.520E+01

b’ 7.837E-01 8.441E-01 8.144E-01 8.298E-01 8.230E-01 8.289E-01

NEMA Design C electric motors

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

a’ 2.285E+01 2.55E+01 3.26E+01 3.37E+01 - -

b’ 8.241E-01 8.40E-01 7.86E-01 7.86E-01 - -

Using the scaling relations across horsepower, DOE estimated the weight for 4-pole 

enclosed motors at each CSL, for each equipment class group and all horsepower ratings. DOE

then used the index presented in Table 10.3.3 to obtain weight estimates for all equipment 

classes. The final weight estimates are available in the NIA spreadsheet.

10.3.2.4 Repair Costs

DOE calculated the repair costs in two steps. First DOE considered the cost of one repair 

event by motor horsepower, configuration and efficiency level described in chapter 8, section

8.2.2.4. Then DOE calculated the lifetime repair cost of a motor with a given horsepower, 

configuration and efficiency level, operating in a certain sector, as the present-value of a stream 

of repair events occurring every 5, 15 or 16 years (depending on the sector) after the motor’s 

warranty period and during 30 years. For the calculation of the present-value DOE used the two 

discount rates discussed in section 10.3.2.6. However, DOE understands that not all motors will 

operate for 30 years. Consequently, in the calculation of present value, DOE multiplied the cost 

of each repair event by the probability that the motor will be in operation by that time, according 

to its horsepower rating and the sector where the motor is used. (See section 10.2.2.5 above for 

more about lifetime distributions.)

10.3.2.5 Electricity Prices

For the NIA, DOE considered the electricity prices by sector as national weighted 

averages of the regional electricity prices described in Chapter 8 of the TSD, section 8.2.2.2.

10.3.2.6 Discount Rate

The discount rate expresses the time value of money. DOE used real discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent, as established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

guidelines on regulatory analysis.8 The discount rates DOE used in the LCC are distinct from 

those it used in the NPV calculations, in that the NPV discount rates represent the societal rate of 
24

return on capital investment, whereas LCC discount rates reflect the owner cost of capital and the 

financial environment of electric utilities and commercial and industrial entities.

10.3.3 Unit Lifetime Energy Cost

The unit lifetime energy cost expresses an estimate of the market average expense with 

electricity that owners of all motors of a given equipment class, shipped in a given year, will 

have to operate these motors over their lifetime. It refers to the variable uLTNChp,g,c in Eq. 

10.17 and Eq. 10.18, and is evaluated as the sum of the annual energy cost over the motor 

lifetime:

uLTNChp,g,c(s, a, y) = ∑ �UEChp,g,c(s, a, i) ∙ nP(y + i − 1) ∙ (1 + r)1−i ∙ Ohp(s, i)� 30

i=1 Eq. 10.25

UEChp,g,c(s, a, i) = (hp × 0.757) ∙ Load(a) ∙ Hourshp(s, a)

fEffc ∙ aEffhp,c(a) ∙ Conserv(i) Eq. 10.26

where:

uLTNChp,g,c(s, a, y) = the lifetime energy cost of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and 

efficiency level at CSL c, shipped in year y and used for application a

in sector s,

UEChp,g,c(s, a, i) = the site energy consumption in the i-th year of operation of a unit with 

capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency level at CSL c used for 

application a in sector s,

nP(t) = the national average electricity price in year t,

r = the discount rate,

Ohp(s, i) = the probability that a unit with capacity hp, used in sector s will be in 

operation in the i-th year of its lifetime, 

hp = the unit capacity (in horse-power),

Load(a) = the typical load of a motor used in application a,

Hourshp(s, a) = annual hours of operation of a unit with capacity hp, used for 

application a in sector s, 

fEffc = the full-load efficiency of a unit with efficiency level at CSL c, 

aEffhp,c(a) = the factor used to adjust the full-load efficiency of a unit with capacity 

hp and efficiency level at CSL c used in application a to the efficiency 

corresponding to its typical load, and

Conserv(i) = the energy efficiency conservation factor used to reduce the unit initial 

efficiency to the efficiency it is estimated to present in its i-th year of 

operation due to repairs.

10.3.4 Unit Lifetime Non-Energy Costs

The unit lifetime non-energy costs expresses an estimate of the market average expenses 

that owners of all motors of a given equipment class, shipped in a given year, will have with 
25

purchasing and repairing these motors over their lifetime. It refers to the variable uLTQChp,g,c in 

Eq. 10.21 and Eq. 10.22, and is evaluated as the sum of the motor initial costs with the sum of all 

repair costs over the motor lifetime:

uLTQChp,g,c(s, y) = uIChp,g,c(y) + ∑ �uRChp,g,c(i) ∙ (1 + r)1−i ∙ Ohp(s, i)� 30

i=1 Eq. 10.27

uIChp,g,c(y) = kP(y) ∙ uQChp,g,c + uSChp,g,c Eq. 10.28

uQChp,g,c = MSPhp,g,0 ∙ (OVHbase − OVHinc) + MSPhp,g,c ∙ OVHinc Eq. 10.29

uSChp,g,c = uWeighthp,g,c ∙ sP Eq. 10.30

uRChp,g,c(i) = �

uRCepacthp,g ∙ kRc, i = 6, 11, 16, 21, 26

0, i ≠ 6, 11, 16, 21, 26 Eq. 10.31

where:

uLTQChp,g,c(s, a, y)= the lifetime non-energy costs of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g

and efficiency level at CSL c, shipped in year y to sector s,

uIChp,g,c(y) = the total installed cost of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and 

efficiency level at CSL c, shipped in year y,

kP(y) = the price-trend multiplier for a unit shipped in year y,

uQChp,g,c = the retail price of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency 

level at CSL c,

uSChp,g,c = the shipment cost of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and 

efficiency level at CSL c,

MSPhp,g,c = the manufacturer price of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and 

efficiency level at CSL c,

OVHbase = the baseline price overhead,

OVHinc = the incremental price overhead,

uWeighthp,g,c = the weight of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency 

level at CSL c,

sP = the per pound shipment cost,

uRChp,g,c(i) = the repair cost of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency 

level at CSL c in its i-th year of operation,

uRCepacthp,g = the repair cost of a unit with capacity hp, configuration g and efficiency 

level below the applicable under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 

1992), 

kRc = the repair cost adder of a unit with efficiency level at CSL c relative to 

the repair cost of a unit with efficiency level below EPACT 1992,

Ohp(s, i) = the probability that a unit with capacity hp, used in sector s will be in 

operation in the i-th year of its lifetime, and

r = the discount rate.
26

10.4 RESULTS

10.4.1 National Energy Savings and Net Present Value for Candidate Standard Levels

DOE evaluated the NES and NPV using the inputs and methodologies described in 

sections 10.2 and 10.3 for each CSL within each equipment class group. Table 10.4.1 to Table 

10.4.6 present NES and NPV results for each equipment class group, disaggregated by sector and 

motor horsepower ranges. Table 10.4.7 and Table 10.4.8 summarize the NES and NPV results 

for all equipment class groups.

Table 10.4.1 National Energy Savings for NEMA Designs A and B Motors (trillion 

Btu)

Primary CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

Industry

1-5 hp 139.8 494.5 782.4 1100.8 1400.3

6-20 hp 106.9 455.1 743.9 1072.7 1202.6

21-50 hp 66.6 275.9 486.8 703.7 703.7

51-100 hp 83.4 405.4 721.5 1060.6 1377.4

101-200 hp 64.2 339.2 688.1 1046.7 1390.5

201-500 hp 53.6 489.4 828.4 1147.9 1466.1

Commercial

1-5 hp 129.9 459.4 726.8 1022.6 1300.9

6-20 hp 177.6 756.0 1236.0 1782.3 1998.1

21-50 hp 94.8 392.4 692.3 1000.7 1000.7

51-100 hp 20.3 98.5 175.3 257.6 334.6

101-200 hp 11.8 62.6 126.9 193.1 256.5

201-500 hp 15.5 141.8 239.9 332.5 424.7

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6-20 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21-50 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

51-100 hp 4.7 22.8 40.5 59.6 77.3

101-200 hp 1.5 8.1 16.3 24.8 33.0

201-500 hp 1.4 12.9 21.8 30.1 38.5

Full-Fuel Cycle CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

Industry

1-5 hp 147.5 521.8 825.5 1161.4 1477.5

6-20 hp 112.8 480.1 784.9 1131.8 1268.9

21-50 hp 70.3 291.2 513.7 742.4 742.4

51-100 hp 88.0 427.7 761.3 1119.0 1453.3

101-200 hp 67.8 357.9 726.1 1104.4 1467.1

201-500 hp 56.6 516.4 874.1 1211.2 1547.0
27

Commercial

1-5 hp 137.0 484.7 766.9 1078.9 1372.6

6-20 hp 187.4 797.7 1304.2 1880.5 2108.3

21-50 hp 100.0 414.1 730.5 1055.9 1055.9

51-100 hp 21.4 103.9 184.9 271.8 353.0

101-200 hp 12.5 66.0 133.9 203.7 270.6

201-500 hp 16.4 149.6 253.2 350.8 448.1

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6-20 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21-50 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

51-100 hp 4.9 24.0 42.8 62.8 81.6

101-200 hp 1.6 8.5 17.2 26.2 34.8

201-500 hp 1.5 13.6 23.0 31.8 40.6

Table 10.4.2 Net Present Value for NEMA Designs A and B Motors (million 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

Industry

1-5 hp 345.5 707.1 1093.4 -1302.5 -1836.1

6-20 hp 263.5 809.4 1235.7 -586.2 -765.1

21-50 hp 145.8 460.6 759.9 -79.5 -79.5

51-100 hp 168.7 701.0 1135.6 19.8 -11.1

101-200 hp 113.1 535.2 1024.8 248.7 365.5

201-500 hp 67.3 675.6 1171.6 727.3 975.4

Commercial

1-5 hp 387.2 685.8 1143.5 -3164.1 -4253.3

6-20 hp 495.3 1337.4 2016.7 -3786.0 -4491.3

21-50 hp 238.5 665.0 1041.9 -1821.9 -1821.9

51-100 hp 45.5 175.7 264.8 -390.7 -515.8

101-200 hp 19.5 89.7 163.6 -111.3 -134.6

201-500 hp 18.3 187.5 314.1 67.1 101.7

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6-20 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21-50 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

51-100 hp 7.4 25.0 33.3 -133.1 -174.9

101-200 hp 1.6 6.7 11.0 -34.8 -44.3

201-500 hp 0.6 8.1 13.3 -21.0 -25.1
28

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

Industry

1-5 hp 757.7 1650.9 2528.7 -1765.0 -2606.6

6-20 hp 585.3 1884.3 2900.4 -245.6 -489.2

21-50 hp 342.8 1132.0 1894.3 534.7 534.7

51-100 hp 400.9 1710.5 2827.8 1071.5 1309.7

101-200 hp 283.2 1365.9 2661.9 1598.7 2178.0

201-500 hp 179.0 1758.4 3060.8 2579.4 3387.4

Commercial

1-5 hp 915.3 1918.4 3121.2 -4528.1 -6203.4

6-20 hp 1197.0 3630.7 5601.2 -4422.9 -5432.5

21-50 hp 596.9 1851.6 3017.5 -1852.5 -1852.5

51-100 hp 117.3 482.6 768.4 -327.0 -442.3

101-200 hp 59.2 286.3 547.3 159.7 235.2

201-500 hp 62.9 614.1 1040.3 756.7 997.7

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6-20 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

21-50 hp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

51-100 hp 19.8 75.5 113.1 -173.7 -230.0

101-200 hp 5.4 24.8 45.6 -26.8 -32.3

201-500 hp 3.2 34.0 57.7 6.6 11.8

Table 10.4.3 National Energy Savings for NEMA Design C Motors (trillion Btu)

Primary CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Industry

1-5 hp 1.579 2.200 2.846

6-20 hp 1.551 2.232 2.889

21-50 hp 0.905 1.383 1.869

51-100 hp 0.881 1.714 2.478

101-200 hp 0.927 1.651 2.415

Commercial

1-5 hp 1.603 2.232 2.887

6-20 hp 2.783 4.004 5.184

21-50 hp 1.177 1.798 2.430

51-100 hp 0.228 0.444 0.642

101-200 hp 0.175 0.312 0.457

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000
29

51-100 hp 0.044 0.085 0.123

101-200 hp 0.019 0.034 0.049

Full-Fuel Cycle CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Industry

1-5 hp 1.667 2.322 3.003

6-20 hp 1.637 2.355 3.048

21-50 hp 0.955 1.459 1.972

51-100 hp 0.930 1.808 2.614

101-200 hp 0.978 1.742 2.548

Commercial

1-5 hp 1.691 2.356 3.047

6-20 hp 2.936 4.225 5.470

21-50 hp 1.242 1.897 2.564

51-100 hp 0.241 0.469 0.678

101-200 hp 0.185 0.329 0.482

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

51-100 hp 0.046 0.090 0.130

101-200 hp 0.020 0.035 0.052

Table 10.4.4 Net Present Value for NEMA Design C Motors (million 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Industry

1-5 hp 2.890 -2.629 -2.831

6-20 hp 2.771 0.185 0.480

21-50 hp 1.664 1.256 1.724

51-100 hp 1.537 2.025 2.877

101-200 hp 1.599 2.617 3.515

Commercial

1-5 hp 2.980 -6.705 -7.376

6-20 hp 4.681 -3.731 -3.889

21-50 hp 1.777 -0.702 -0.719

51-100 hp 0.362 0.298 0.439

101-200 hp 0.256 0.414 0.542

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

51-100 hp 0.026 -0.044 -0.063
30

101-200 hp 0.012 0.016 0.014

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Industry

1-5 hp 6.679 -3.290 -3.313

6-20 hp 6.546 2.246 3.298

21-50 hp 4.080 3.773 5.112

51-100 hp 3.814 5.543 7.870

101-200 hp 4.107 6.814 9.310

Commercial

1-5 hp 7.983 -9.279 -9.683

6-20 hp 13.113 -0.769 0.683

21-50 hp 5.257 1.589 2.535

51-100 hp 1.055 1.278 1.855

101-200 hp 0.829 1.389 1.902

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000

51-100 hp 0.108 0.028 0.040

101-200 hp 0.054 0.084 0.104

Table 10.4.5 National Energy Savings for Fire Pump Electric Motors (trillion Btu)

Primary CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Industry

1-5 hp 0.006 0.008 0.011 0.013

6-20 hp 0.185 0.258 0.333 0.361

21-50 hp 0.072 0.106 0.141 0.141

51-100 hp 1.169 1.655 2.216 2.714

101-200 hp 0.954 1.475 1.988 2.457

201-500 hp 0.708 1.190 1.616 2.038

Commercial

1-5 hp 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006

6-20 hp 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.009

21-50 hp 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004

51-100 hp 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001

101-200 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

201-500 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
31

51-100 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

101-200 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

201-500 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Full-Fuel Cycle CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Industry

1-5 hp 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.014

6-20 hp 0.195 0.272 0.352 0.381

21-50 hp 0.076 0.112 0.149 0.149

51-100 hp 1.233 1.746 2.338 2.864

101-200 hp 1.006 1.556 2.098 2.592

201-500 hp 0.747 1.255 1.706 2.150

Commercial

1-5 hp 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006

6-20 hp 0.005 0.007 0.009 0.010

21-50 hp 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004

51-100 hp 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001

101-200 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

201-500 hp 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

51-100 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

101-200 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

201-500 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 10.4.6 Net Present Value for Fire Pump Electric Motors (million 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Industry

1-5 hp -2.594 -3.674 -8.310 -10.487

6-20 hp -1.499 -2.182 -5.863 -6.607

21-50 hp -0.614 -0.941 -2.794 -2.794

51-100 hp 1.143 1.481 -0.192 -0.438

101-200 hp 0.956 1.379 0.161 0.086

201-500 hp 0.639 1.049 0.297 0.386

Commercial

1-5 hp -2.252 -2.949 -9.700 -12.263

6-20 hp -3.293 -4.645 -14.543 -16.304

21-50 hp -1.440 -2.178 -7.217 -7.217

51-100 hp -0.334 -0.523 -1.718 -2.178

101-200 hp -0.155 -0.263 -0.815 -1.027
32

201-500 hp -0.190 -0.332 -0.902 -1.127

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

51-100 hp -0.079 -0.123 -0.403 -0.510

101-200 hp -0.022 -0.038 -0.117 -0.147

201-500 hp -0.021 -0.036 -0.097 -0.121

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Industry

1-5 hp -6.436 -9.292 -18.784 -23.687

6-20 hp -3.343 -4.924 -12.094 -13.656

21-50 hp -1.327 -2.043 -5.627 -5.627

51-100 hp 3.680 4.909 2.471 2.585

101-200 hp 3.063 4.525 2.893 3.317

201-500 hp 2.118 3.515 2.653 3.349

Commercial

1-5 hp -4.860 -6.506 -19.450 -24.580

6-20 hp -6.728 -9.544 -28.303 -31.741

21-50 hp -2.894 -4.380 -13.908 -13.908

51-100 hp -0.674 -1.050 -3.312 -4.200

101-200 hp -0.313 -0.526 -1.571 -1.984

201-500 hp -0.382 -0.664 -1.746 -2.183

Agriculture

1-5 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

6-20 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

21-50 hp 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

51-100 hp -0.159 -0.247 -0.776 -0.984

101-200 hp -0.045 -0.076 -0.225 -0.285

201-500 hp -0.041 -0.072 -0.188 -0.235

Table 10.4.7 National Energy Savings Summary (quads)

Primary CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 0.972 4.414 7.527 10.836 13.005

NEMA Design C 0.012 0.018 0.024 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.008 -

All Motorsh 0.987 4.437 7.558 10.843 13.005

Full-Fuel Cycle CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 1.026 4.657 7.942 11.433 13.722

NEMA Design C 0.013 0.019 0.026 - -

Fire Pump Motors 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.008 -

All Motorsh 1.041 4.681 7.974 11.441 13.722
33

Table 10.4.8 Net Present Value Summary (billion 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 2.318 7.070 11.423 -10.368 -12.710

NEMA Design C 0.021 -0.007 -0.005 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors -0.010 -0.014 -0.052 -0.061 -

All Motorsh 2.329 7.049 11.366 -10.429 -12.710

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 5.526 18.420 30.186 -6.634 -8.634

NEMA Design C 0.054 0.009 0.020 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors -0.018 -0.026 -0.098 -0.114 -

All Motorsh 5.561 18.403 30.108 -6.748 -8.634

10.4.2 Scenario Analysis

DOE also performed a scenario analysis to assess how changes in economic growth 

would affect the former NPV results reported in Table 10.4.8. Table 10.4.9 and Table 10.4.10

present NPV results for both the low- and high economic growth scenarios. 

Table 10.4.9 Net Present Value Summary for the Low Economic Growth Scenario

(billion 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 1.790 5.257 8.439 -10.171 -12.425

NEMA Design C 0.015 -0.008 -0.008 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors -0.008 -0.012 -0.044 -0.051 -

All Motorsh 1.797 5.236 8.387 -10.223 -12.425

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 4.131 13.326 21.728 -9.536 -11.983

NEMA Design C 0.039 0.001 0.007 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors -0.016 -0.023 -0.082 -0.096 -

All Motorsh 4.154 13.303 21.652 -9.632 -11.983

Table 10.4.10 Net Present Value Summary for the High Economic Growth Scenario

(billion 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 2.892 9.082 14.744 -10.144 -12.491

NEMA Design C 0.026 -0.005 -0.002 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors -0.011 -0.016 -0.060 -0.070 -

All Motorsh 2.907 9.061 14.682 -10.214 -12.491

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B 7.001 23.872 39.252 -2.885 -4.265

NEMA Design C 0.069 0.019 0.035 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors -0.020 -0.029 -0.114 -0.132 -

All Motorsh 7.050 23.862 39.173 -3.017 -4.265
34

10.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis

Besides calculating NES and NPV values for the inputs described in sections 10.2.2 and 

10.3.2 above, DOE performed a sensitivity analysis for some of those inputs, namely the annual 

hours of operation, MSP and repair cost. While changes in the annual hours of operation affect 

both the NES and NPV, a variation in the MSP and repair cost impacts only the NPV. Table 

10.4.11 through Table 10.4.14 summarize the impacts that a change of ±10 percent in these 

variables has on the former NES and NPV values, as reported in Table 10.4.7 and Table 10.4.8.

Table 10.4.11 National Energy Savings Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes

in Hours of Operation* (trillion Btu)

Primary CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±97.2 ±441.4 ±752.7 ±1083.6 ±1300.5

NEMA Design C ±1.2 ±1.8 ±2.4 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±0.3 ±0.5 ±0.6 ±0.8 -

All Motorsh ±98.7 ±443.7 ±755.8 ±1084.3 ±1300.5

Full-Fuel Cycle CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±102.6 ±465.7 ±794.2 ±1143.3 ±1372.2

NEMA Design C ±1.3 ±1.9 ±2.6 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±0.3 ±0.5 ±0.7 ±0.8 -

All Motorsh ±104.1 ±468.1 ±797.4 ±1144.1 ±1372.2

* NES and hours of operation are positively correlated, which means that a positive increase in NES results from a 

positive increase in hours of operation.

Table 10.4.12 Net Present Value Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in 

Hours of Operation* (million 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±281.9 ±1257.2 ±2134.8 ±3071.6 ±3669.3

NEMA Design C ±3.5 ±5.2 ±7.0 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±0.6 ±0.9 ±1.2 ±1.5 -

All Motorsh ±285.9 ±1263.3 ±2142.9 ±3073.1 ±3669.3

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±657.8 ±2950.4 ±5016.3 ±7218.4 ±8627.7

NEMA Design C ±8.1 ±12.3 ±16.4 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±1.6 ±2.5 ±3.3 ±4.0 -

All Motorsh ±667.5 ±2965.1 ±5036.0 ±7222.4 ±8627.7

* NPV and hours of operation are positively correlated, which means that a positive increase in NPV results from a 

positive increase in hours of operation. 
35

Table 10.4.13 Net Present Value Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in 

Manufacturer Selling Price* (million 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±27.7 ±367.0 ±729.5 ±3557.2 ±4257.0

NEMA Design C ±1.0 ±5.2 ±6.6 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±0.9 ±1.4 ±5.0 ±5.9 -

All Motorsh ±29.7 ±373.6 ±741.1 ±3563.1 ±4257.0

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±51.8 ±684.7 ±1361.1 ±6636.8 ±7942.4

NEMA Design C ±1.9 ±9.7 ±12.2 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±1.7 ±2.6 ±9.4 ±10.9 -

All Motorsh ±55.4 ±697.0 ±1382.7 ±6647.7 ±7942.4

* NPV and MSP are negatively correlated, which means that a positive increase in NPV results from a negative 

increase in MSP.

Table 10.4.14 Net Present Value Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in 

Repair Cost* (million 2011$)

7% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±15.8 ±109.3 ±195.1 ±289.6 ±368.4

NEMA Design C ±0.1 ±0.3 ±0.5 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±0.5 ±0.7 ±1.0 ±1.2 -

All Motorsh ±16.4 ±110.3 ±196.6 ±290.8 ±368.4

3% discount rate CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

NEMA Design A and B ±41.2 ±285.7 ±510.0 ±756.9 ±961.3

NEMA Design C ±0.4 ±0.9 ±1.3 - -

Fire Pump Electric Motors ±1.4 ±2.2 ±2.9 ±3.6 -

All Motorsh ±43.0 ±288.7 ±514.3 ±760.5 ±961.3

* NPV and repair cost are negatively correlated, which means that a positive increase in NPV results from a 

negative increase in repair cost. 
36

REFERENCES

1. NEMA. 2007. Motor Shipments Slip in Third Quarter of 2007. NEMA News, on 05 Dec 

2007.

2. NEMA. 2010. Motors Index Surges in Second Quarter of 2010. NEMA News, on 24 Aug 

2010.

3. U.S. Census Bureau. Motors and Generators – 2002.MA335H(02)-1. (Aug 2003) at 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/discontinued/ma335h/ma335h02.xls

4. U.S. Census Bureau. Motors and Generators – 2003. MA335H(03)-1. (Nov 2004) at 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/discontinued/ma335h/ma335h03.xls

5. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Capital Spending report: U.S. Capital spending patterns – 1999-

2008. (2010) http://www.census.gov/econ/aces/report/2010/capitalspendingreport2010.pdf

6. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2011, December, 2010. 

Washington, DC. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo 

7. Energy Information Administration - Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting The 

National Energy Modeling System. (U.S. Department of Energy: Washington DC, 2009).at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/