10

- i CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 3

10.2 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVI NGS

................................ ................................ ..................... 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 Effi ciency 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 o f Manufacturer Selling Price Scaling Index Across Poles and

Enclosures (Designs A and B motors, CSL 1)

................................ ....................... 19

Table 10.3.2 Manufacture r Selling Price Scaling Equation Parameters across

Horsepower

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 2010

- 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 P resent Value for NEMA Design C Motors (million 2011$)

......................... 29

Table 10.4.5 National Energy Savings for Fire Pump Electric Motors (tril lion 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

Tabl e 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 Vari ation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in Hours

of Operation* (million 2011$)

................................ ................................ ............... 34

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

Manufacturer Selling Price* (million 2011$)

................................ ........................ 35

Table 10.4.14 Net Present Value Variation in Res ponse 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 acr oss

Horsepower

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 203 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 motor s

, 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 motor s covered in this analysis

. T hese electric motors have

been categorized into three distinct equipment class groups : National Ele ctrical Manufacturers

Association ( NEMA ) Design A and B motor s

, NEMA Design C motor s

, and f ire p ump electric

motor s. 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 motor s

. DOE performed all calcu lations

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

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

NIA model are provided in A ppendix 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 futu re purchases of the considered equipment. Chapter 9 provides a

detailed description of the shipments models.

a See www.eere.energy.gov/bui ldings/appliance_standards/4 To calculate the national impacts of new standards for all equipment class group s

considered in this rulemaking DOE used scaling factor s (descr ibed in Chapter 5 and s ection

10.3.2 below ) to estimate equipment related cost s and annual energy consumptio n for all

equipment classes

. DOE derived t hese factors from the engineering outputs for the eight

representative units

.

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

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 (sh own as rectangles) into major outputs (shown

as boxes with curved bottom edges).

The NIA calculation started with the shipments model

. This model produce s 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 analysi s period during their estimated lifetime.

The annual values, therefore, refer to the lifetime

, cumulative energy related savings and non

energy 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

- cycle b (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 con sumption s

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 CSL s . This produced, for each equipment class , two sets of two

streams of annual national ener gy consumption, from which DOE derived two stream s 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 a n d FFC energy savings of all equipment

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

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

aggregated national primary and FFC energy savings to produce the pr imary and FFC NES s of

all equipment class group s

. 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) r esults for CSL 5 aggregates the results from Design A and B at CSL 5 with thos e 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 energ y

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

- energ y 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

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

savings and national incremental non

- energy costs by equipment c lass 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 NAT IONAL 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 saving s 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 energ y 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 a n 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) (quad s ) , 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 factor s d from th e Annual Energy Outlook 6 ( AEO ) and projections

d The site

- to

- primary factor s account for electricity generation, transmission and distribution losses.6 of primary

- to

- FFC conversion factors e from a NEMS

- based methodology (A p p endix 10

- C )

, and

calculated the market average of the total primary and FFC energy use d 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 t he 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 difference s in their primary and FFC energy use between the corresponding base case and

the standards case scenario s

.

e The primary

- to

- FFC factor s 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 NES8 This calculation is expressed by the following formulas:

Lifetime Primary Energy Savings

nSES h p

, g ( y )

= ∑ ∑ � nSrcECbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

− nSECst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y ) �

a s Eq. 10.1

nSECbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uSEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mbc h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.2

nSECstd h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uSEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mstd h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.3

uSEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

= ∑ aSEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y

, i ) i = 1

. . LT Eq. 10.4

where:

nSES h p

, g ( y )

= the lifetime primary energy savings of all motors with capacity hp

and configuration g shipped in year y

, nSECbc h p

, 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

, nSECstd h p

, 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

, S h p h p

, 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

, uSEC h p

, 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

, aSEC h p

, 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

, Mbc h p

, 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

Mstd h p

, c ( y )

= the standards case market share of units with capacity hp

,

co nfiguration g and efficiency level at CSL c shipped in year y

.

Lifetime Full

- Fuel

- Cycle Energy Savings

nFES h p

, g ( y )

= ∑ ∑ � nFECbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

− nFECst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y ) �

a s Eq. 10.5

nFECbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uFEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mbc h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.69 nFECstd h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uFEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mstd h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.7

uFEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

= ∑ � aSEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y

, i )

∙ ffc ( y + i

− 1 ) �

i = 1

. . LT Eq. 10.8

where:

nFES h p

, g ( y )

= the lifetime FFC energy savings of all motors with capacity hp and

configuration g shipped in year y

, nFECbc h p

, 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

, nFECstd h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= the standards case, lifetime FFC energy consumption of motors with

capa city hp and configuration g shipped in year y to be used in

application a in sector s

, S h p h p

, 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

, uFEC h p

, 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

, aSEC h p

, 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

, Mbc h p

, 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

Mstd h p

, 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 ( NES

src ) and the total FFC NES

( NES FFC ) for the analysis period. The calculation used t he following formulas:

NES

src = � � � nSES h p

, g ( y ) 2044

y = 2015 g h p Eq. 10.9

NES FFC = � � � nFES h p

, g ( y ) 2044

y = 2015 g h p Eq. 10.10

where:

nSES h p

, g ( y )

= the lifetime primary energy savings of all motors with capacity hp and

configuration g shipped in year y

, and10 nFES h p

, 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 marke t share

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

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

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

efficiency distribution we re 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 factor s , whic h enable the calculation

of primary energy consumption from site energy use , and (c) shipment efficiency distribution s 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. e lectricity site

- to

- primary conversion factors ;

7. electricity primary

- to

- FFC conversion factors, and

8. base case shipments efficiency distributi on

.

10.2.2.1 Motor Capacity

The motor capacity refers to the unit h orsepower (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 h orsepower 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

Fo r the NIA, DOE considered the energy efficiencies by CSL presented in c hapter 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 efficienc ies 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 operation f ; (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 motor s , DOE used

a time

- varying adjust ing factor that reduces the initial motor efficiency over its lifetime ( s ee

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 distribut ion. After calculating

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

multiplied the se 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 e lectric 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. average s 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

- F ull

- F uel

- C ycle Conversion Factors

DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. On A ugust 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 futur e FFC analyses. For this preliminary analysis DOE us ed

the methodology described in A ppendix 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 abbrevi a tion “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

- F ull

- F uel

- C ycle Conversion Factors

Year Conversion Factors

Site

- to

Primary

(Btu/kWh) Primary

- to

FFC

(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 C ase 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 m ajor

manufacturer s and one large distributor ( s ee Table 10.2.4 ) , and considered those distributions to

remain constant over the analysis period

.14 Table 10.2.3 Base C ase 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 aSEC h p

, g

, c in Eq. 10.4 and Eq. 10.8 , and is

evaluated from the following formulas :

aSEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y

, i )

= UEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, i )

∙ O h p ( s

, i )

∙ StoS ( y + i

− 1 ) Eq. 10.11

UEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, i )

= ( h p × 0

. 757 )

∙ Load ( a )

∙ Hours h p ( s

, a )

fEff

c ∙ aEff h p

, c ( a )

∙ Conserv ( i ) Eq. 10.12

where:

aSEC h p

, 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

, UEC h p

, 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 project ed to year t

, O h p ( 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,

h p = the unit capacity ( in horse

- power)

, Load ( a )

= the typical load of a motor used in application a

, Hours h p ( s

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

application a in sector s

, fEff

c = the full

- load efficiency of a unit with efficiency level at CSL c

, aEff h p

, 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 repair s

.

10.2.4 Standards Case Shipment Efficiency Distribution

Section 10.2.2.8 described t he 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 ) :

Mstd h p

, c = � 0

, c < c ∗

∑ Mbc h p

, j

c ∗

j = 1 , c = c ∗

Mbc h p

, c , c > c ∗ Eq. 10.13

where:

Mstd h p

, c ( y )

= the standards case market share of units with capacity hp and efficiency

level at CSL c shipped in year y

, Mbc h p

, 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 financ ial 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 N e t 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 obtai ned motor input data and average electricity

costs from the LCC analysis , and estimate d motor non

- energy and energy lifetime costs. F or

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 e lectricity used by motors shipped at each year of the analysis period over

their lifetime

. I n 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 cost s 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 scenario s 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 204 4

, 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 = � � � nECS h p

, g ( y )

∙ ( 1 + r ) 2012

− y 2044

y = 2015 g h p Eq. 10.15

nECS h p

, g ( y )

= ∑ ∑ � nNCbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

− nNCst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y ) �

a s Eq. 10.16

nNCbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uNC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mbc h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.17

i DOE did not account for installation costs and maintenance costs. Although these costs might have sig nificant

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 nNCst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uNC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mst h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.18

and:

PVS = � � � nIEC h p

, g ( y ) × ( 1 + r ) 2012

− y 2044

y = 2015 g h p Eq. 10.19

nIEC h p

, g ( y )

= ∑ ∑ � nQCbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

− nQCst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y ) �

a s Eq. 10.20

nQCbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uQC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mbc h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.21

nQCst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

∙ A ( a )

∙ ∑ � uQC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

∙ Mst h p

, c ( y ) �

c Eq. 10.22

where:

nECS h p

, g ( y )

= the lifetime energy cost savings of all motors shipped in year y

, nNCbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= the base case, lifetime energy cost of all motors shipped in year y

,

nNCst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= the standards case, lifetime energy cost of all motors shipped in year y

,

uNC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

= the lifetime energy co st of a unit with efficiency level at CSL c

shipped in year y

, nIECS h p

, g ( y )

= the lifetime incremental equipment non

- energy costs of all motors

shipped in year y

, nQCbc h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= the base case, li fetime equipment non

- energy costs of all motors

shipped in year y

, nQCst h p

, g ( s

, a

, y )

= the standards case, lifetime equipment non

- energy costs of all motors

shipped in year y

, uQC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

= the lifetime equipment non

- energy co sts of a unit with efficiency level

at CSL c shipped in year y

, S h p h p

, g ( s

, y )

= the number of motors with capacity hp and configuration g shipped in

year y to sector s

, Mbc h p

, 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

Mst h p

, 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 N PV calculation and detail how unit lifetime energy and

non

- energy costs are calculated

.18 10.3.2 N et Present Value Inputs

The N PV model input s include: (a) the parameters that help calculate the unit energy

consumption , (b) the electricity prices tha t enable the calculation of energy costs

, (c) equipment

first

- and non

- energy operating costs, and ( d ) shipment efficiency distributions for the ba se case

. The list of N PV 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. m anufacturer s elling p rice ( MSP ) and price ove rheads;

6. motor weight and shipment costs;

7. repair costs;

8. lifetime (probability) distribution;

9. e lectricity price ;

10. discount rate;

11. base case shipments efficiency distribution.

Inputs 1

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

described in this section.

10.3.2.1 M anufacturer S elling P rice and Price Overheads

The Engineering Analysis, c hapter 5 provides MSP data for ei ght 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 t hese indices using statistical estimates

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

catalogs from six major manufacturer s and one large distributor ( s ee Table 10.3.1 for an example

of the se indices estimated for Designs A and B motors, CSL 1 .).19 Table 10.3.1 Example of M anufacturer S elling P rice Scaling Index Across P oles and

E nclosures (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 a n equation to scale the MSP of a 4

- pole enclosed motor across motor

h orse p ower

. The relations derived from power law regressions , with 0. 9 81 < R 2 < 0.999

, are

expressed by the following equation:

MSP 4

, e ( h p )

= a

. ( h p ) b Eq. 10.23

where:

MSP 4

, e ( h p )

= 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 f ire p ump electric motors are the same as the ones used for

NEMA D esign s A and B motors.

Table 10.3.2 M anufacturer S elling P rice Scaling Equation Parameters across

Horsepower

NEMA Design A and B motors, an d f ire 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

Design s A and B motors and fire pump electric motor s.

Figure 10.3.1 Example of M anufacturer S elling P rice 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

. D OE

then used the index presented in Table 10.3.1 to obtain MSP estimates for all equipment class es

. The final MSP estimates are available in the NIA spreadsheet

. y = 123.72x 0.6702

R2 = 0.9998 y = 125.58x 0.6853

R2 = 0.998 y = 180.63x 0.6826

R2 = 0.9991 y = 200.11x 0.6825

R2 = 0.9991

y = 110.95x 0.6657

R2 = 0.9995

y = 113.25x 0.6241

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 120MSP (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 Pri ces

For reasons discussed in c hapter 8 of the TSD (s ection 8.2.1.1 ), DOE used a constant

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

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

for electric motors, DOE also considered two alternative price trend s

. 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 M otor 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 e ngineering a nalysis, chapter 5.

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

and enclosure across horsepower ratings. DOE established thes e indices using statistical

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

internet catalogs from six major manufacturer s and one large distributor ( s ee Table 10.3.3 for an

example of the se indices estimated for Designs A and B motors, CSL 1 .).22 Table 10.3.3 Example of Weight Scaling Index Across P oles and E nclosures (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 relations hips , derived from power law regressions (0.99 2 < R 2 < 0.999), are

expressed by the following equations:

Weig h t 4

, e ( h p )

= a ′

. ( h p ) b ′ Eq. 10.24

where:

Weig h t 4

, e ( h p )

= 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 c lass group . As

mentioned in Chapter 5, the weights of f ire p ump electric motors are the same as the ones used

for NEMA Design s 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

class es

. 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 c hapter 8

, s ection

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 s ection 10.3.2.6

. However, DOE understands that not all motors will

opera te 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 rat ing and the sector where the motor is used. (See s ection 10.2.2.5 above for

more about lifetime distributions.)

10.3.2.5 Electricity Prices

For the NIA, DOE c onsidered the electricity prices by sector as national we ighted

average s of the regional electricity prices described in Chapter 8 of the TSD, s ection 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 of24 return on capital investment , whereas LCC discount rates reflect the owner cost of capital and the

financial environment of electric utilities and commercial and indust rial 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 ov er the ir lifetime. It refers to the variable uLTNC h p

, 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:

uLTNC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

= ∑ � UEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, i )

∙ nP ( y + i

− 1 )

∙ ( 1 + r ) 1

− i

∙ O h p ( s

, i ) � 30

i = 1 Eq. 10.25

UEC h p

, g

, c ( s

, a

, i )

= ( h p × 0

. 757 )

∙ Load ( a )

∙ Hours h p ( s

, a )

fEff

c ∙ aEff h p

, c ( a )

∙ Conserv ( i ) Eq. 10.26

where:

uLTNC hp

, 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

, UEC hp

, 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,

O h p ( 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,

h p = the unit capacity (in horse

- power)

, Load ( a )

= the typical load of a motor used in application a

, Hours h p ( s

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

application a in sector s

, fEff

c = the full

- load efficiency of a unit with efficiency level at CSL c

, aEff h p

, 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 with25 purchasing and repairing these motors over their lifetime. It refers to the variable uLT QC h p

, g

, c in

Eq. 10.21 and Eq. 10.22 , and is evaluated as the sum of the motor in itial cost s with the sum of all

repair costs over the motor lifetime:

uLTQC h p

, g

, c ( s

, y )

= uIC h p

, g

, c ( y ) + ∑ � uRC h p

, g

, c ( i )

∙ ( 1 + r ) 1

− i

∙ O h p ( s

, i ) � 30

i = 1 Eq. 10.27

uIC h p

, g

, c ( y )

= kP ( y )

∙ uQC h p

, g

, c + uSC h p

, g

, c Eq. 10.28

uQC h p

, g

, c = MSP h p

, g

, 0 ∙ ( OVHbase

− OVHinc ) + MSP h p

, g

, c ∙ OVHinc Eq. 10.29

uSC h p

, g

, c = uWeig h t h p

, g

, c ∙ sP Eq. 10.30

uRC h p

, g

, c ( i )

= � uRCepact h p

, g ∙ kR

c , i = 6

, 11

, 16

, 21

, 26

0

, i ≠ 6

, 11

, 16

, 21

, 26 Eq. 10.31

where:

uLTQC hp

, g

, c ( s

, a

, y )

= the lifetime non

- energy costs of a unit with capacity hp , configuration g

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

, uIC hp

, g

, c ( y )

= the total installed co st 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

, uQC hp

, g

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

level at CSL c

, uSC hp

, g

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

efficiency level at CSL c

, MSP hp

, 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

, uWeig h t hp

, g

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

level at CSL c

, sP

= the per pound shipment cost

, uRC hp

, g

, c ( i )

= the repair co st of a unit with capacity hp , configuration g and efficiency

level at CSL c in its i

- th year of operation,

uRCepact hp

, 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),

kR

c = 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

, O hp ( 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 N ational E nergy S avings and N et P resent V alue for Candidate Standard Le vels

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

s ections 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 group s

.

Table 10.4.1 N ational E nergy S avings for NEMA Design s A and B M otors ( 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 1547.027 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 N et P resent V alue for NEMA Design s A and B Motors ( m illion 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

- 25.128 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 N ational E nergy S avings f or 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 0.00029 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 N et P resent V alue 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

- 0.06330 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 N ational E nergy S avings 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 0.00031 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 N et P resent V alue 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

- 1.02732 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 N ational E nergy S avings 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 Motors h 0.987 4.437 7.558 10.843 13.005

F ull

- F uel C ycle 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 Motors h 1.041 4.681 7.974 11.441 13.72233 Table 10.4.8 N et P resent V alue 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 Motors h 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 Motors h 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 N et Present V alue 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 Motors h 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 Motors h 4.154 13.303 21.652

- 9.632

- 11.983

Table 10.4.10 N et P resent V alue 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 Motors h 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 Motors h 7.050 23.862 39.173

- 3.017

- 4.26534 10.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis

Besides calculating NES and NPV values for the inputs described in s ections 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 s ummarize 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 N ational E nergy S avings Variation in Response to ±10 Percent C hange s

in H ours of O peration * ( 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 M otors ± 0.3 ± 0. 5 ± 0.6 ± 0. 8

-

All Motors h ± 98.7 ± 443.7 ± 755.8 ± 1084.3 ± 1300.5

F ull

- F uel C ycle 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 Motors h ± 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 N et P resent V alue Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in

Hours of Operation * ( m illion 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 Motors h ± 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 Motors h ± 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 N et P resent V alue Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in

M anufacturer S elling P rice * ( m illi on 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 Motors h ± 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 Motors h ± 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 N et P resent V alue Variation in Response to ±10 Percent Changes in

Repair Cost * ( m illion 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 Motors h ± 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 Motors h ± 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 De c

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 , D ecember, 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 E nergy: Washington DC, 2009).at

ht tp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/