HI Data Rev

Engineering Analysi

Pumps Negotiation Rule
2

 On 4/29/2014 HI provided DOE and the analysis team 

the aggregated results of the HI/NEMA BIS survey as

requested.

 An analysis was performed to compare the HI/NEMA 

NAV/LBNL C‐Values

 The following slides present the results and conclusi

the ESCC, ESFM, IL, and VT‐S equipment classes

• RS‐V is a special case and will be discussed separately

HI Data Review
3

Summary of Survey Results: Total Models

EquipmentType

Model Count

HI/NEMA BIS

SURVEY

NAV/LBNL

SURVEY

Delta:

([HI/NEMA]

[NAV/LBNL]

ESCC – 1800 321 296 25

ESCC – 3600 263 235 28

ESFM – 1800 369 319 50

ESFM – 3600 225 196 29

IL – 1800 162 213 (51)IL – 3600 89 102 (13)RS‐V – 1800 9 7 2

RS‐V – 3600 23 18 5VT‐S – 1800 9 13 (4)

VT‐S – 3600 49 57 (8)

HI Data Review
4

Summary of Survey Results: % of Industry Shipm

EquipmentType

Estimated

Total Industry

Shipment

Survey Shipments Survey % of 

HI/NEMA BIS

SURVEY

NAV/LBNL

SURVEY

HI/NEMA BIS

SURVEY

ESCC 171,456 75,035 69,960 44% 

ESFM 44,042 30,809 29,381 70% 

IL 50,424 15,669 21,399 31% 

RS‐V 104,406 19,180 2,974 18% 

VT‐S 49,975 17,928 15,518 36% Total 420,303 158,621 139,232 38% 

HI Data Review
5

Summary of Survey Results: C‐Values [ALL Equip HI Data Review
6

Results: For some equipment classes, the NAV/LBNL dataset 

more models/shipments, for some the HI/NEMA BIS 

contained more

• Overall model counts and shipments were similar

 HI/NEMA BIS C‐Values were similar in distribution to

NAV/LBNL

 HI/NEMA BIS C‐Values were on average 0.90 points l

efficient than the NAV/LBNL Data

• Average of PER 10, 25, 40, 55, and 70 for all Equipmen

Recommendation: Proceed with using NAV/LBNL data

• Merge the HI/NEMA BIS data with the NAV/LBNL data 

remove duplicate values

HI Data Review
7

Data Issues and Limitations
8

Summary of Key Issues and Limitations:

 RS‐V

• 2‐ and 4‐Pole Model Performance Data is Limited

- Total of only 32 models represented

- Only 18% of industry shipments are represented

• Only 3 manufacturers represented in data sample

 VT‐S

• 4‐Pole Model Performance Data is limited

Implication of Data Limitations: C‐Values and Efficiency Levels may not be representa

the industry as a whole

Data Issues and Limitations
9

Summary of Survey Results: Total Models

EquipmentType

Model Count

HI/NEMA BIS

SURVEY

NAV/LBNL

SURVEY

Delta:

([HI/NEMA] ‐

[NAV/LBNL])

ESCC – 1800 321 296 25

ESCC – 3600 263 235 28

ESFM – 1800 369 319 50

ESFM – 3600 225 196 29

IL – 1800 162 213 (51)IL – 3600 89 102 (13)RS‐V – 1800 9 7 2

RS‐V – 3600 23 18 5VT‐S – 1800 9 13 (4)

VT‐S – 3600 49 57 (8)

Very low model counts 

for RS-V 1800/3600 and 

VT-S 1800
10

Summary of Survey Results: % of Industry Ship

EquipmentType

Estimated

Total Industry

Shipment

Survey Shipments Survey % of 

HI/NEMA BIS

SURVEY

NAV/LBNL

SURVEY

HI/NEMA BIS

SURVEY

ESCC 171,456 75,035 69,960 44% 

ESFM 44,042 30,809 29,381 70% 

IL 50,424 15,669 21,399 31% 

RS‐V 104,406 19,180 2,974 18% 

VT‐S 49,975 17,928 15,518 36% Total 420,303 158,621 139,232 38% 

Very low 

shipments 
11

Setting Efficiency Levels and Standards Option 1: Use EU C‐Values

• The EU represents a mature market for the RS‐V pump

- RS‐Vs are a global platform, with nearly all US models derived 

hydraulics.

• MEI C‐Values would need to be translated to PER C‐Values

- For the 25 models in our database, PER C‐Values are on avera

points lower than the MEI C‐Value.

 Option 2: Set no standard due to lack of data

• Still require testing and certification

RS‐V: Options to Move Forward
12

Setting Efficiency Levels and Standards Option 1: Combine 2‐ and 4‐Pole Data, and regulate with one s

Values

• One set of C‐Values for both speeds

 Option 2: Use 2‐Pole Data only and only regulate 2‐Pole model

• Same as EU

• 4‐Pole shipments very low – 0.4% of Shipments (NAV/LBNL)

• We are not aware of any dedicated 4‐Pole hydraulics in the marke• We believe all 4‐Pole models would end up being certified under 

speed.

VT‐S: Options to Move Forward
13

Engineering Analysis Updates
14

The upcoming slides will cover the following:

 Updates made to End Suction and Inline analyses sin

conclusion of the April 30th meeting

 Results of the VT‐S analysis

Engineering Analysis Updates
15

1. Percent of models eligible to be polished was adjust

- End Suction: From 6% to 3.6%

- Inline: From 6.5% to 3.9%

• Comments from C. Cappellino (May 4, 2014) suggeste

were over‐estimating the efficiency gains available fro

polishing impellers.

- Available gains from polishing were effectively cut in ha

we will not be polishing volutes. EU study on polishing 

as guidance.

2. Additional capital conversion cost required to chan

advanced casting reduced by approximately half

• Corrects an invalid assumption in the original method

- The original method scaled up the total pattern and too

when only the impeller pattern and tooling costs shoulup.

End Suction and Inline Updates
16

3. Hydraulic Redesign cost decreased by 15%

• Original HI survey included “Cost of Capital” category

- 20% of the total cost

- 25% of the Redesign, Tooling, Testing, and Marketing Cost.

• Defined as "Cost of money to finance upgrades, and Inven

Rework Transition, Inventory for legacy support.)"

• Cost of money is covered by the WACC discount rate.

- Because this is covered in the WACC already, any financing c

backed out.

- We propose leaving in 25% of the provided “Cost of Capital” 

and attributing this to Inventory costs, which would likely im

- We proposed backing‐out 75% of the provided “Cost of Cap

value, which works out to 15% of the total Hydraulic Redesig

– That put the cost of financing at 18.75% of the up

» Between 3 and 4 years worth of financing cos

WACC of 11.8%

End Suction and Inline Updates
17

4. Updated number of End Suction and Inline pump models in th

based on HI Survey data

• End Suction Changed from 2050 to 2398• IL changed from 739 to 808

5. Cost of redesign per‐unit adjusted to decrease linearly from P

PER10

• Previously modeled the manufacturers’ plans to redesign to 

any standard less than or equal to PER 40

• Changed to model the actual cost of redesigning to PER 10 o

to fairly examine economic justification for those efficiency l

End Suction and Inline Updates
18

Summary of Results: Industry Cost of RedesignEnd Suction and Inline Updates

ESCC/ESFM

Efficiency Level

PER 10

($MM)

PER 25

($MM)

PER 40

($MM)

PER 55

($MM)

PER 7

($MM

April 30, 2014 $24.4 $65.1 $110.7 $213.1 $34May 14, 2014 $12.3 $49.0 $111.1 $213.9 $35Percent Difference ‐50% ‐25% 0% 0% 

IL

Efficiency Level

PER 10

($MM)

PER 25

($MM)

PER 40

($MM)

PER 55

($MM)

PER 7

($MM

April 30, 2014 $10.60 $28.20 $47.90 $92.20 $150May 14, 2014 $5.0 $19.8 $45.0 $86.5 $14Percent Difference ‐53% ‐30% ‐6% ‐6% ‐

Please note: The original results, released on 5/2/14, and listed in the presentation“Final_Eng_Analysis_Slides_2014‐04‐30_w‐revisions.pptx” contained a typographical 

the columns of some of the results. The above row, titled April 30, 2014 presents the 

results for that date.
19

Summary of Results: Industry Cost of Redesign as % of End Suction and Inline Updates

ESCC/ESFM

Efficiency Level

PER 10

($MM)

PER 25

($MM)

PER 40

($MM)

PER 55

($MM)

PER 7

($MM

April 30, 2014 18% 47% 80% 155% 25May 14, 2014 9% 36% 81% 155% 25Percent Difference ‐50% ‐25% 0% 0% 

IL

Efficiency Level

PER 10

($MM)

PER 25

($MM)

PER 40

($MM)

PER 55

($MM)

PER 7

($MM

April 30, 2014 22% 58% 98% 189% 30May 14, 2014 10% 41% 92% 177% 29Percent Difference ‐53% ‐30% ‐6% ‐6% ‐

Please note: The original results, released on 5/2/14, and listed in the presentation“Final_Eng_Analysis_Slides_2014‐04‐30_w‐revisions.pptx” contained a typographical 

the columns of some of the results. The above row, titled April 30, 2014 presents the 

results for that date.
20

Additional considerations for the working group:

 Simplify the cost of redesign model:

• Remove polishing as a design option

- <2% of population is currently polished in the model

• Ignore the effects of changing to advanced casting

- This would reduce total cost by approximately 0.3%

End Suction and Inline Updates
21

VT‐S Results
22

Key Assumptions Only 2‐Pole models analyzed

 No models dropped

 All failing models hydraulically redesigned

 40% of total MSP attributed to motor price

 70% shipments sold with motor

 Cost to redesign a model reduced linearly below PER 40

 End Suction/Inline Price‐Efficiency relationship applied to VT‐S

Results:VT‐S Results

VT‐S

Efficiency Level

PER 10

($MM)

PER 25

($MM)

PER 40

($MM)

PER 55

($MM)

PER 70

($MM)

Industry Cost of Redesign 2.5 9.3 19.8 38.1 62Percent of Revenues 7% 28% 59% 114% 187
23

Results:VT‐S Results