1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Test ProceduresNotice of Proposed Rulemaking forCeiling FansEnergy Conservation StandardsPreliminary Analysis for Ceiling FansNovember 19, 2014

Lucy deButts

Department of EnergBuilding Technologie

TP: EERE‐2013‐BT‐T

CF2013TP0050@

ECS: EERE‐2012‐BT‐S

CeilingFan2012See.doe.gov
2

Welcome• Introductions (around the room)• Role of the Facilitator

• Ground Rules

- Speak one at a time.

- Say your name for the record – there will be a complete tra

this meeting.

- Be concise – share the ‘air‐time.’

- Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebar

conversations.

- Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items

• Agenda Review

• Opening Remarks
3

Public Meeting Agenda: Morning

9:00 – 9:10 am Welcome and Introductions

Ceiling Fan Proposed Test Procedures

9:10 – 9:30 am Opening Statements; TP Regulatory History; Rulem

9:30 – 10:00 am Covered Products: Scope and Definitions

10:00 – 10:30 am Existing Test Procedures; Proposed Metric10:30 – 10:40 am Break10:40 – 11:50 am Proposed Ceiling Fan Test Procedures

11:50 am – 12:00 pm Closing Remarks

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch
4

Public Meeting Agenda: Afternoon

Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Standards Prelim

1:00 – 1:20 pm Opening Statements; ECS Regulatory History; Rule

1:20 – 1:30 pm Scope; Market & Technology Assessment

1:30 – 1:45 pm Screening Analysis

1:45 – 2:15 pm Engineering Analyses

2:15 – 2:25 pm Break

2:25 – 2:55 pm Markups; Energy Use; Life Cycle Cost Analyses

2:55 – 3:30 pm Shipments; National Impact Analyses

3:30 – 3:40 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

3:40 – 3:50 pm NOPR Analyses

3:50 – 4:00 pm Closing Remarks and Adjourn
5

Listening via the Webcast• DOE is broadcasting this meeting live over the Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stakehold

are unable to attend the public meeting in person.

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in and vi

slides.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comm

the public meeting.
6

Proposed Ceiling Fan (CF) Test Procedur
7

Issue for Discussion

Issue box numbering corresponds to the list of issues published at t

the Test Procedure NOPR, available at regulations.gov, under docket 

EERE‐2013‐BT‐TP‐0050, at

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE‐2013‐BT‐TP‐00

The deadline for submitting comments on the Test Procedure NOPR 

December 31, 2014

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information

concerning the proposed CFs test procedures. Issues that

correspond to those raised in DOE’s published material will b

numbered in accordance with that material. Whether invited 

issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’

analysis.
8

How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the CF test procedure ru

– Test Procedure for Ceiling Fans;

– Docket Number EERE‐2013‐BT‐TP‐0050; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AD10.

• Email: CF2013TP0050@ee.doe.gov

Postal: Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program,Mailstop EE‐5B

1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585‐0121

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Progra950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20024Tel: 202 586‐2945

Test Procedure NOPR Comment Period closes: December 31, 2014, 
9

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide ope

remarks or statements at this time.
10

CFs TP Rulemaking Schedule

Milestone Date

Test Procedure NOPR publishedBeginning of 75‐day comment period Octobe

End of 75‐day comment period Decembe

Projected date of Final Rule for CF TP 

Test Procedure effective date (projected) for CFs 

2015 2016
11

Regulatory History – Test Procedure

• Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) e

the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 

Automobiles,” which includes CFs.

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amended EPCA and 

energy conservation standards for CFs, as well as requirem

CF test procedures.

• EPAct 2005 required the CF test procedure be based on the 

Testing Facility Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility 

Performing the Solid State Test Method for ENERGY STAR Q

Fans,” Version 1.1.

• On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule in the Fe

Register for test procedures for CFs. 71 FR 71340.

• DOE is conducting these test procedure rulemakings for C

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(r).
12

Regulatory History – Test Procedure

• The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 

requirements for test procedures:

• At least once every 7 years DOE must conduct an evaluatio

covered products and either amend the test procedures or 

determination in the Federal Register not to amend them.

• For test procedures of covered products that do not fully ac

standby‐mode and off‐mode energy consumption, EISA 200

DOE to amend its test procedures to account for standby‐m

mode energy consumption, unless it is technically infeasibl

• The existing test procedures for CFs are specified in Appen

Subpart B of part 430 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Re

(CFR).
13

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
14

Covered Products: Scope and Applicability

• The test procedures apply to CFs that meet the statutory defini

EPCA defines a CF as “a non‐portable device that is suspended f

for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades.”

(42 USC§6291)

• DOE is proposing to reinterpret the statutory definition of a CF 

incorporate hugger CFs.

• DOE proposes to clarify that multi‐mount CFs and high‐volume 

statutory definition of a CF.

• The current and proposed test procedures

• do not apply to centrifugal fans.

• do not apply to air circulators (or air circulating fan heads) t

typically mounted on a pedestal but also include wall, ceilin

mounting brackets.
15

Covered Products: Scope and Applicability

Issue 1: Reinterpretation of Statutory Definition of CF

DOE is reinterpreting the statutory definition of a CF to include

hugger CFs and clarifying that the definition includes multi‐mount

CFs. DOE notes that CFLKs attached to hugger CFs would become

covered CFLKs under this reinterpretation. DOE invites comment o

this reinterpretation and clarification.

Issue 2: Inclusion of High‐Volume CFs

DOE is also clarifying that high‐volume CFs are considered CFs and

covered under this rulemaking. DOE invites comment on this

clarification.Issue 3: Exclusion of Centrifugal Fans from Test Procedure

DOE is proposing interpreting centrifugal fans to fall outside of th

scope of this rulemaking. DOE invites comment on this

interpretation.
16

Covered Products: CF Categories

• DOE proposes to define two CF categories that will be teste

ways: low‐volume CFs and high‐volume CFs.

A low‐volume CF must be less than or equal to 7 feet in diameter. Addition

have a blade thickness greater than or equal to 3.2 mm at the edge and a 

speed less than or equal to the limit in Table 1 OR provide a maximum airf

less than 5,000 CFM.

A high‐volume CF is either greater than 7 feet in diameter, OR has a blade 

less than 3.2 mm at the edge or a maximum tip speed that exceeds the th

Table 1 while providing a maximum airflow volume greater than 5,000 CFM

Table 1 is based on the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) CF safety standard (UL

Standard 507‐1999, “UL Standard for Safety for Electric Fans”).

Airflow

Direction

Thickness (t) of edges of blades Maximum speed at tip of blad

mm inch m/s feet per minu

Downward‐Only 4.8 > t ≥ 3.2 (3/16 > t ≥ 1/8) 16.3 (3200)

Downward‐Only t ≥ 4.8 (t ≥ 3/16) 20.3 (4000)

Reversible 4.8 > t ≥ 3.2 (3/16 > t ≥ 1/8) 12.2 (2400)

Reversible t ≥ 4.8 (t ≥ 3/16) 16.3 (3200)

Table 1: Low‐Volume CFs, 7 Feet or Less in Diameter
17

Covered Products: CF Categories

The classification 1) Reversible or fo

2) Blade span,3) Max airflow vol

4) Blade edge thic

5) Max tip speed
18

Covered Products: Proposed Definitions

• DOE proposes to define three other CF categories:

• Hugger: “A ceiling fan where the lowest point on the fan bl

more than ten inches from the ceiling.”

• Standard: “A ceiling fan where the lowest point on the fan 

more than ten inches from the ceiling.”

• Multi‐mount: “A ceiling fan that can be mounted in both th

and hugger ceiling fan configurations.”

• NOTE: To meet DOE’s definition of a multi‐mount CF, a fan m

of being mounted in configurations that meet both DOE’s de

hugger and a standard CF. A CF that can be mounted at mor

height does not necessarily qualify as a multi‐mount CF.

Issue 4: Proposed Definitions

DOE invites comment on the proposed definitions for low‐volume 

volume CFs, hugger CFs, standard CFs, and multi‐mount CFs.
19

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
20

DOE’s Current Test Procedure

• DOE's test procedure for CFs is codified in Appendix U to s

part 430 of Title 10 of the CFR.

• The current test procedure references the “ENERGY STAR 

Facility Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility and Pe

the Solid State Test Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ce

version 1.1.

• The ENERGY STAR test method referenced

in DOE’s test procedure is no longer current.
21

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
22

Proposed Metric

• DOE proposes to apply a single metric based on airflow ef

all CFs.

• For low‐volume CFs, DOE is proposing to use a weighted ave

airflow and power consumption at high and low fan speeds.

• For high‐volume CFs, DOE is proposing to use the airflow an

consumption at high fan speed only.
23

Proposed Metric

• DOE proposes to apply a single metric based on airflow ef

CFs.

• For all CFs with standby functionality (including CFs with a 

is proposing to incorporate standby power consumption in

airflow efficiency metric.

• DOE is not proposing to include off‐mode power consumpt

metric, because DOE believes that CFs do not consume pow

EPCA defines “standby mode” as the condition in which an energy‐using product

1. is connected to a main power source, and2. offers one or more of the following user‐oriented or protective functions:

i. To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other functions (including 

by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer.

ii. Continuous functions, including information or status displays (includin

sensor‐based functions. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii))

“Off mode” is the condition in which the CF is connected to a main power source 

providing any standby or active mode function. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))
24

Proposed Metric: Operating Hours

• For low‐volume CFs, DOE proposes to use the daily nation

hours of operation reported in the Lawrence Berkeley Nat

Laboratory report titled “Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light 

the U.S.” as the basis for weighting energy consumption a

low speed.

• For high‐volume CFs, DOE estimated operating hours base

feedback from manufacturers

Daily Operating Hours for Low‐Volume CFs

Setting/Speed No Standby With 

High Speed 4.2 

Low Speed 2.2 

Standby Mode 0.0 1

Off Mode 17.6 

Daily Operating Hours for High‐Volume CFs

Setting/Speed No Standby With 

Active Mode 12.0 1

Standby Mode 0.0 1

Off Mode 12.0 
25

Proposed Metric: Efficiency Equation

• To calculate the efficiency of low‐volume CFs, DOE propo

the following equation:

	ܨܥ	ܧ݂݂݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿݕ ൌ ∑௜ୀு,௅ ܯܨܥ ௜ൈ ܱܪ ௜ሺܹௌ௕ൈ ܱܪௌ௕ሻ ൅ ∑௜ୀு,௅ ܹ௜ ൈ ܱ

• To calculate the efficiency of high‐volume CFs, DOE propo

the following equation:

ൌ ݕ݂݂݅ܿ݅݁݊ܿܧ	ܨܥ	

஺ܪܱ ൈ ுܯܨܥ

ሺܹௌ௕ൈ ܱܪௌ௕ሻ ൅ ሺܹுൈ ܱܪ஺ሻ

Low‐Volume CF Equation VariablesCFMi = airflow at a given speed

OHi = operating hours at a given speed

Wi = power consumption at a given speed

H = high speed

L = low speed

OHSb = operating hours in standby mode

WSb = power consumption in standby mode

High‐Volume CF Equation VariableCFMH = airflow at high speed

OHA = operating hours in active 

WH = power consumption at higOHSb = operating hours in standb

WSb = power consumption in sta
26

Proposed Metric

Issue 5: Standby Power Consumption

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to incorporate

standby power consumption into the CF efficiency metric.

Issue 6: Assignment of Standby Power Consumption

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to assign all stand

power consumption for a remote receiver that controls both a CF

and light kit to the CF.

Issue 7: Operating Hours

DOE seeks comment on its proposed operating hours for calculati

CF efficiency for low‐volume CFs.Issue 8: Operating Hours for High‐Volume CFs

DOE seeks comment and any available data on operating hours fo

high‐volume CFs.
27

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
28

Proposed Modifications to Current Test Proced

• DOE proposes to modify the current test procedure for CF

address the following issues:

1. to clarify that low‐volume CFs should be tested at high an

speeds,

2. to eliminate the requirement to use a test cylinder,

3. to add a false ceiling to the experimental setup for low‐vo

4. to clarify the distance between the CF blades and the air v

sensors,

5. to clarify the appropriate fan configuration during testing 

volume CFs,

6. to clarify the test method for CFs with heaters, and

7. to revise the allowable tolerance for air velocity sensors u

testing.
29

1. Low‐Volume CF Testing at High and Low Spe

• DOE proposes to require testing at high and low fan spee

volume CFs.

• The current DOE test procedure allows for testing at all av

speeds, but does not specify how many speeds should be 

• Considerations:

• Testing at a single speed may limit representativeness.

• Testing at three speeds may introduce ambiguity regarding 

of medium speed for fans with more than three settings; ad

testing at three speeds incurs more test burden than testin

speeds.

Issue 9: Low‐Volume CF Testing at High and Low Speeds

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to test at high a

speed for low‐volume CFs.
30

2. Elimination of Test Cylinder

• DOE proposes to eliminate the requirement to test with a 

cylinder.

• Considerations:

• Testing without a cylinder installed more

closely simulates installed usage conditions.

• DOE test results indicate that measuring airflow

without a test cylinder may be more accurate.

• Eliminating the test cylinder requirement will:

o decrease test burden for manufacturers

wanting to introduce new fan sizes,

o reduce potential market distortions favoring CFs

sized according to currently‐available cylinders, and

o more closely harmonize the low‐volume and high‐volume CF 

procedures.
31

3. Addition of False Ceiling

• DOE proposes to test all low‐volume CFs with the additio

ceiling directly above the CF.

• Considerations:

• Testing with a false ceiling in place more closely simulates i

usage conditions.

• Testing both standard and hugger‐type CFs with a false ceil

allows consumers the ability to make “apples‐to‐apples” co

between all low‐volume CFs.

• Requiring a false ceiling will introduce a one‐time (i.e., not 

financial burden on testing facilities.

Issue 11: Addition of False Ceiling

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a false ceiling to t

experimental setup for all low‐volume CF testing.
32

4. Distance Between CF Blades and Sensors

• DOE proposes to define the vertical position of a CF with 

the distance between the lowest point on the CF blades 

heads of the air velocity sensors (applicable to all low‐vol

• Considerations:

• The test set‐up for the current DOE test

procedure assumes that CF blades are reasonably

flat; therefore, the procedure specifies a test setup

distance based on the middle of the fan blade tips.

• It may be unclear as to how the “middle of blade tip”

measurements should be made for fans having

non‐flat blades or unusual shapes.

Leve

senshead

DiagraSTAR’s 
33

5. Low‐Volume CF Test Configuration

• DOE proposes to clarify that if there is more than one mo

option specified by the manufacturer that would meet th

definition of a standard low‐volume CF, that CF should be 

the configuration that minimizes the distance between tand the lowest part of the fan blades. A similar clarificatio

proposed for hugger fans.

• Considerations:

• DOE research indicates that a number of low‐volume CFs ca

mounted at more than one height while still being classifie

standard or hugger CF.

• In contrast to the requirements for meeting DOE’s definition 

mount fan, these fans only need to be tested in a single conf

described above).

• Testing all standard and hugger low‐volume CFs in this man

provide a consistent basis for comparison.
34

5. Low‐Volume CF Test Configuration

Issue 12: Low‐Volume CF Installation Configurations

DOE seeks comment and data on how CFs with more than on

mounting option that would meet the definition of a standard 

are configured in the field. DOE also seeks comment and data 

how hugger CFs with more than one mounting option are con

in the field.
35

6. CFs with Heaters

• DOE proposes to clarify that during testing, any heater pa

with a CF should be installed, in case it might affect airflo

heater should be switched off.
36

7. Allowable Tolerance for Air Velocity Sensors

• DOE proposes to change the sensor tolerances from the c

procedure value of 1% to 5%.

• Considerations:

• The current DOE test procedure incorporates by reference 

STAR guidance manual v1.1, which requires air speed senso

accuracy of ±1% or better.

• ENERGY STAR guidance manual v1.2, however, requires air 

sensors with an accuracy of only ±5% or better.

• From testing, DOE concluded that the variation in measure

was not significantly affected by decreasing the accuracy of 

velocity sensors from ±1% to ±5%.
37

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
38

Proposed Additional Test Methods

• DOE proposes to add the following test methods to the CF 

procedure:

1. a test method for low‐volume multi‐mount CFs,

2. a test method for multi‐headed CFs,

3. a test method for CFs for which the airflow is not directed 

4. a test method for high‐volume CFs, and

5. a test method for power consumption in standby mode.
39

1. Test Method for Low‐Volume Multi‐Mount C

• DOE proposes to test low‐volume, multi‐mount CFs in tw

configurations:

1. In the standard configuration that minimizes the distance 

ceiling and the lowest part of the fan blades, and

2. In the hugger configuration that minimizes the distance be

ceiling and the lowest part of the fan blades.

• Considerations:

• Multi‐mount CFs can be installed in both configurations. It 

priori in which configuration a multi‐mount fan will be insta

Issue 14: Low‐Volume Multi‐Mount CF Testing

DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers should be re

to test multi‐mount CFs in the standard configuration, hugger

configuration, both configurations, or all configurations for w

they are capable of being installed.
40

• DOE proposes to measure airflow of multi‐headed CFs by 

single fan head (i.e., no blades from other heads rotating), 

fan head in the same position as when a fan with a single h

tested, such that it is directly over sensor 1 (i.e., the center 

• The single fan head’s measured airflow is then multiplied by 

total number of fan heads to get total airflow for

a multi‐head fan.

• For belt‐driven multi‐head fans, DOE

proposes to measure airflow by only

installing a single fan head.

• For multi‐head fans without individual fan

head control (i.e., all heads must be on

or off concurrently), DOE proposes to

measure airflow of a single fan head by

not installing the fan blades on the

remaining fan heads.

2. Test Method for Multi‐Headed CFs
41

2. Test Method for Multi‐Headed CFs

• DOE proposes to measure power consumption of multi‐h

at a given speed with all CF heads turned on.

• Considerations:

• DOE testing of a single multi‐head fan with identical fan he

that the power consumption for one individual fan head wa

the power consumption of both fan heads operating simult

• Measuring the power consumption of one fan head and mu

the number of fan heads could significantly overestimate th

consumption of both fan heads operating simultaneously.
42

• DOE proposes to clarify that the CF head should be adjust

that the airflow is as vertical as possible prior to testing.

• If a CF cannot achieve vertical airflow, DOE proposes to or

such that any remaining tilt is aligned along one of the fo

axes. Air velocity should only be measured along that axis 

axis oriented 180 degrees with respect to that axis.

• Airflow should be calculated based on the

continuous set of sensors with the largest

air velocity measurements.

3. Test Method for CFs with Non‐Vertical Airflo

Example Air Velocity 

Airflow Not Directly D
43

4. Test Method for High‐Volume CFs

• DOE proposes to calculate high‐volume CF efficiency base

and power consumption at high speed.

• For CFs up to 24 feet in diameter, DOE proposes testing hig

CFs using a test procedure based on AMCA 230‐12 (i.e., ke

industry practice for high‐volume CFs with blade spans less 

• Considerations:

• High‐volume CFs are often not equipped

with discrete speeds.

• AMCA 230 requires only a load cell to

measure air velocity, which appears to be

more practical for large‐diameter fans than

using an array of sensors as required in the

current DOE test procedure for low‐volume CFs.

• High‐volume CFs are typically offered in a range of diameter

inches to 24 feet, meaning some fans are too large to be acc

by current low‐volume CF testing facilities.
44

4. Test Method for High‐Volume CFs

• DOE proposes to modify the specified room dimensions f

volume CFs in the following ways:

≥ 44” for all CFs= 20’ for CFs with blade 

≥ 10’ for CFs with blade span > 6’

Issue 10: High‐Volume CF Testing

DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to test high‐volume fans at high spee

Issue 13: Test Room Dimensions and Testing FacilitiesDOE seeks comment on the proposed modifications to the testing room dimensions 

CFs. DOE specifically requests information on how manufacturers currently test large

volume CFs, as well as the availability of suitable third‐party testing facilities that can 

proposed test procedure and the ability to develop such facilities.
45

5. Test Method for Power Consumption in Stan

• DOE proposes to test standby power consumption in CFs 

standby functionality for both low‐volume and high‐volu

• Low‐volume CFs typically only have standby functionality if 

remote control.

• High‐volume CFs may also have standby from variable frequ

• DOE proposes to incorporate Internation

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 6230reference as a basis for standby mode te

reduce the interval of time over which te

to 100 seconds, as well as the period of t

standby testing.

• DOE does not propose to conduct testin

mode power consumption.
46

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
47

Effective Date and Compliance Date

• The proposals for amending Appendix U would not affect 

manufacturer’s ability to comply with current energy cons

standards because DOE does not currently have performa

standards for CFs as measured by airflow efficiency.

• DOE expects that any final rule will be in effect 30 days a

publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federa

• Revised Appendix U must be used to determine any

representations of efficiency 180 days after the publicati

final amended test procedures in the Federal Register.
48

Sampling Plan

• DOE proposes that the minimum sample size for testing C

two, as required in 10 CFR Part 429.11.

• DOE proposes any represented value of the efficiency or a

be less than or equal to the lower of:

Sample	mean, ݔ̅ൌ

1

௜ݔ ෍݊

௡

௜ୀଵ

ሻܮܥܮሺ	ݐ݈݅݉݅	݂݊݅݀݁݊ܿ݁݋ܿ	ݎ݁ݓ݋ܮ

0.9

ൌ

ݔ

݊ݏ ଴ଽ.଴ݐ െ̅

0.9

• n – num• xi – the 

• t0.90 – t s

one‐tailinterval 

of freed

• S – sam

deviatio
49

Sampling Plan

• DOE proposes any represented value of the wattage shall 

than or equal to the higher of:

Sample	mean, ݔ̅ൌ

1

௜ݔ ෍݊

௡

௜ୀଵ

ሻܮܥܷሺ	ݐ݈݅݉݅	݂݊݅݀݁݊ܿ݁݋ܿ	ݎ݁݌݌ܷ

1.1

ൌ

ݔ

݊ݏ ଽହ.଴ݐ െ̅

1.1

• n – num• xi – the 

• t0.95 – t s

one‐tailinterval 

of freed

• S – sam

deviatio
50

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
51

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

• DOE has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (

this rulemaking, which describes potential impacts on sma

businesses associated with CF testing requirements.

• DOE used the Small Business Administration’s small busin

standards for North American Industry Classification Syste

codes 335210 and 333412 to determine whether any sma

manufacturers would be subject to the requirements of th

• DOE estimates that there are between 25 and 35 small bus

manufacturers of low‐volume CFs.

• DOE estimates that there are between 15 and 25 small bus

manufacturers of high‐volume CFs.
52

• Projected compliance requirements of proposed rule for 

CFs, relative to current ENERGY STAR test procedure:

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Current ENERGY STAR TP Proposed DOE TP Differ

Testing at 3 fan speeds Testing at 2 fan speeds + 35 min test tim

Does not require false ceiling Requires false ceiling ‐ $1,000 (max, o

Requires test cylinder Does not require test cylinder + $2,000‐$3,000

+ 15 min test tim

Requires 30 min warm‐up timebefore testing at low speed

Requires 15 min warm‐up time

before testing at low speed + 15 min

Does not require standby

mode testing Requires standby mode testing ‐ 5 min (max) te

Estimated Cost of

Proposed TP for Low‐

Volume CFs

Standard and Hugger $1,200‐$3,600/

Multi‐Mount $2,400‐$7,200/Multi‐Head $2,600‐$4,000/
53

• Expected test costs under proposed rule for high‐volume 

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Description Estimated Cost

Load‐cell, fabricated load‐cell

frame, power meter, and oneair velocity sensor

$4,500 (one‐time cost)

Cost to conduct proposed testprocedure $2,000‐$7,000/basic model
54

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Low‐Volume CFs High‐Volume C

Number of small

business manufacturers 25 ‐ 35 15 ‐ 25Number of basic models

per manufacturer 1 ‐ 80 1 ‐ 30

Median revenue ≈ $15,000,000 ≈ $8,000,000

Testing Cost as Fractionof Median Revenue 0.01% ‐ 1% 0.05% ‐ 1.5%

Issue 15: Number of Small Business Manufacturers of CFs

DOE invites interested parties to comment on the estimated 

of small business manufacturers of CFs.
55

Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Issue 17: Impact on Small Business Manufacturers of CFs

DOE requests comments on its analysis of burden to small

businesses for testing CFs according to the proposed test pro

Issue 18: Alternative Test Methods to Minimize Economic Im

DOE seeks comment and information on any alternative test

methods that, consistent with the statutory requirements, wo

reduce the economic impact of the rule on small entities.

Issue 19: Inter‐Lab Calibration for Testing Facilities

DOE seeks comment on how calibration between testing faci

could be facilitated.
56

CF Test Procedure NOPR Presentation Overview

3 Proposed Metric4 Proposed Modifications to Current Test Procedure8 Closing Remarks1 Covered Products5 Proposed Additional Test Methods6 Effective Date & Compliance Date; Sampling Plan2 Existing Test Procedure7 Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
57

Ceiling Fans Energy Conservation Standards – Pre

Analysis
58

How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the CF rulemaking by:

– Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans;

– Docket Number EERE‐2012‐BT‐STD‐0045; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AC87.

• Email: CeilingFan2012STD0045@ee.doe.gov

Postal: Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program,Mailstop EE‐2J

1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585‐0121

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Progra950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20024Tel: 202 586‐2945

Energy Conservation Standards TSD Comment Period clo

November 28, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT
59

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide ope

remarks or statements at this time.
60

CFs ECS Rulemaking Schedule

Milestone Da

Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of CFs and CFLKs

Framework Document March 

Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of CFs Preliminary

Technical Support Document Septembe

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for CFs (projected) 

Final Rule for CFs (projected) 

Compliance Date for CFs (projected) 

* Calendar quarters

2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 

2015 2019
61

Regulatory History: Energy Conservation Stand

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Energy Policy a

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) by adding CFs as covered p

U.S.C. 6295(ff))

− Provided DOE the ability to establish energy conservation sta

“ceiling fans,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. 6291(49), and set forth 

for determining whether standards should be amended.

• On October 18, 2005, DOE published a final rule technical a

(70 FR 60407, 60413) codifying statutorily‐prescribed desig

for CFs, including:

− Fan speed controls separate from any light controls;

− Adjustable speed controls; and

− Capability for reverse action (except for fans for industrial or 

applications, or cases where safety standards would be viola

• DOE is conducting this energy conservation standards rulem

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(6).
62

Preliminary Analysis Stage

Framework

Document

Prelim

Analysis NOPR Final Rule

Market &Technology

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use & End

Use LoadCharacterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

NatioImpacAnaly

Life‐CycleCost andPaybackPeriod Analysis

MarkupsAnalysis /Product PriceDetermination

Prelim

MIA
63

EPCA Factors

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) directs DOE to consider seven fa

when setting energy conservation standards.

EPCA Factors DOE Analysis

1. Economic impact on consumers and

manufacturers

Life‐Cycle Cost An

Manufacturer Impact 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared

to increased cost for the product Life‐Cycle Cost An

3. Total projected energy savings National Impact An

4. Impact on utility or performance Engineering Ana

Screening Analy

5. Impact of any lessening of competition Manufacturer Impact 

6. Need for national energy conservation National Impact An7. Other factors the Secretary considers

relevant

Emissions Analy

Utility Impact Ana

Employment Impact 
64

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
65

Scope of Coverage

• EPCA defines a “ceiling fan” as “a nonportable device that 

suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation 

blades.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(49))

• In the TP NOPR, DOE is proposing to:

• reinterpret the definition of “ceiling fan” to

incorporate hugger CFs,

• clarify that multi‐mount fans are included, and

• clarify that high‐volume fans are included (where volume re

airflow volume).

• DOE is required to consider establishing separate exempte

classes for highly decorative fans for which air movementperformance is a secondary feature. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(6)(

• Statutorily‐prescribed design standards will remain in place
66

Scope of Coverage: CF Definitions

• Regulatory Definitions Under Consideration in this Pre‐Ana

• Highly decorative CF: “A ceiling fan that operates at a maxim

speed of 90 RPM and produces less than 2000 CFM of airflo

speed.”

• Regulatory Definitions Proposed in the Concurrent CF Test 

NOPR and discussed this morning:

• Low‐volume CF

• High‐volume CF

• Hugger CF

• Standard CF

• Multi‐Mount CF

Issue 1: Definition of Highly Decorative CFs

DOE invites comments on the proposed definition for highly decora
67

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
68

Market & Technology Assessment

• Purpose:

• Characterize the CF market

• Define product classes• Identify technology options

• Method:

• Identify and characterize manufacturers of CFs

• Identify existing regulatory and voluntary efficiency programs

• Gather historical shipment and other relevant market data

• Estimate market trends• Identify measures that could improve efficiency
69

Market Assessment

CF Categories Market Description May Include... Percent of Market in DOE Analysis

High‐Volume Industrial, commercial ~10%

Low‐Volume Residential, commercial ~90%

Standard Standard, indoor, extended 26%Hugger Hugger, low‐profile, flush mount 21%Multi‐Mount

Multi‐position,downrod or flushmount

53%

HighlyDecorative Decorative <1%
70

Market Assessment

Low‐Volume CFs High‐Volum

MajorManufacturersand Market

• ≈ 80% of CFs sold through three

mass market retailers

• Most CFs manufactured overseas

• Most large‐diameter fa

in U.S.; DOE assumes m

diameter fans manufac

• Limited market data av

HistoricalShipments,2011

≈ 18.8 million (NPD, 2011) Limited data available

Saturation,2009

In 73% of US households, 3.1 fans per

household (RECS, 2009) Limited data available

Lifetime 7‐18 years (Appliance Magazine data)

• DOE estimated mean of 13.8 years

Limited data available; ass

as for low‐volume CFs
71

Market AssessmentIssue 2: Manufacturing Locations of High‐Volume CFs

DOE requests comment and input on the manufacturing location f

volume CFs, particularly high‐volume small‐diameter CFs.

Issue 3: High‐Volume CF Data

DOE seeks comment and data on distribution of sizes and motor p

both high‐volume large‐diameter CFs and high‐volume small‐diam

particular, for high‐volume large‐diameter CFs, DOE assumes a 1 h

CF is representative of that entire market and requests comment o

accuracy of this assumption. DOE also seeks comment and data on 

distribution of end users by industry and application and the geog

distribution of high‐volume CFs.
72

Market AssessmentIssue 8: Residential CF Penetration

DOE estimated a current household saturation rate for CFs of 73%

assumed that the residential market for low‐volume CFs would co

penetrate until a saturation of 75% is reached. Additionally, DOE e

average of 3.1 CFs installed in a new installation. DOE welcomes co

these assumptions.
73

Product Classes• Currently: only one product class.

• In DOE’s previous rulemaking addressing CFs (71 FR 71340 

DOE did not establish standards for CFs beyond the design 

section 325(ff) of EPCA, which apply to all CFs. (42 U.S.C. 62

• Pursuant to EPCA, DOE establishes different product class

type of energy used; (2) capacity of the product; or (3) anperformance‐related features that require different stand

such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 629

• DOE is considering establishing five (5) separate CF produc

this rulemaking, based on capacity and performance‐relat

that affect consumer utility.
74

Product Classes

Product Class Definition

Low‐volumeHugger Lowest point on fan blades is  ≤ 10 inches from the ceiling Standard Lowest point on fan blades > 10 inches from the ceiling

Highly

decorative

Rotational speed ≤ 90 RPM and airflow

≤ 2,000 CFM at high speed

High‐volumeSmall‐diameter (HVSD) High‐volume CF with diameter  ≤ 7 feet

Large‐diameter

(HVLD) High‐volume CF with diameter > 7 feet
75

• Multi‐mount CFs are defined as CFs that can be installed i

standard and hugger configurations.

• In the concurrent TP NOPR for CFs, DOE is proposing to te

multi‐mount CFs in both the standard and hugger configu

• DOE is considering requiring multi‐mount CFs meet the po

conservation standards for both standard and hugger prod

Multi‐Mount CFsIssue 14: Product Classes

DOE seeks comment on the product classes under consideration fo

also seeks comment on its approach to highly decorative CFs.
76

Technology Options

More Efficient Motors:• Direct‐drive single‐phase

induction motors

• Geared single‐phase induction

motors

• Brushless direct current (DC)

motors

• Three‐phase induction motors

CF Controls:

• Occupancy sensors

• DOE investigated the following technology options to impr

efficiency:

More Efficient Blades:• Fewer fan blades• Twisted blades

• Curved/airfoil blades• Blade attachments• Beveled blades

• Blade material
77

Technology OptionsIssue 12: CFs with Wind and Temperature Sensors

DOE request information on the availability of CFs including wind a

temperature sensors and any data on the potential energy savings 

with such products.

Issue 13: CFs Technology Options

DOE requests comment on these technology options being consid

and any additional options that should be included.
78

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
79

• Screen out design options that DOE will not consider in the

engineering analysis for ceiling fans based on:

1. Technological feasibility: incorporation in commercially available products 

prototypes

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service: mass production and r

installation and servicing could be achieved on the scale necessary to serv

market at the time the standard requires compliance

3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability: significant adv

the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or causing 

unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristi

sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 

available in the United States at the time

4. Adverse impacts on health or safety: significant adverse impacts on healt

Screening Analysis

Purpose
80

Design Options: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE identified the design options below that can improve

low‐volume ceiling fan efficiency.

More Efficient Motors

More Efficient Direct‐Drive Single‐Phase Induction Motors S

Brushless DC Motors S

Geared Induction Motors Sc

Three‐Phase Induction Motors Sc

More Efficient Blades

Fans with Fewer Blades Sc

Airfoil Blades ScBeveled Blades ScTwisted Blades Sc

Blade Attachments Sc

Alternative Blade Materials Sc

Ceiling Fan Controls

Occupancy Sensors Sc
81

Design Options: High‐Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE identified the design options below that can improve

high‐volume small‐diameter (HVSD) ceiling fan efficiency.

More Efficient Motors

Brushless DC Motors Sc

More Efficient Direct‐Drive Single‐Phase Induction Motors Scr

Geared Induction Motors Scr

Three‐Phase Induction Motors Scr

More Efficient Blades

Airfoil Blades Sc

Curved Blades ScFans with Fewer Blades Scr

Twisted Blades ScrBlade Attachments Scr

Alternative Blade Materials Scr

Ceiling Fan Controls

Occupancy Sensors Scr
82

Design Options: High‐Volume Ceiling Fans

• DOE identified the design options below that can improve

high‐volume large‐diameter (HVLD) ceiling fan efficiency.

More Efficient Motors

Geared Motors S

Three‐Phase Induction Motors S

Brushless DC Motors S

More Efficient Direct‐Drive Single‐Phase Induction Motors S

More Efficient Blades

Airfoil Blades S

Fans with Fewer Blades S

Curved Blades S

Twisted Blades SBlade Attachments S

Alternative Blade Materials S

Ceiling Fan Controls

Occupancy Sensors S
83

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
84

 Choose product classes and representative fan sizes to b

 Select baseline efficiency level based on common featu

of‐market efficiency.

 For each representative product class and size, identify 

and cost of more efficient units based on design option 

product testing, and teardowns.

 Develop efficiency levels that range from the baseline to 

 The result of the engineering analysis is a set of cost‐eff

(MSP vs. efficiency) for each product class and represen

analyzed.

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Engineering Analysis

• Scope of Coverage Methodology
85

• DOE analyzed the following representative sizes of low‐

two product classes:

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Low‐Volume Ceiling Fans

Product Class Representative Size

Standard Fans

• 44‐inch• 52‐inch• 60‐inch

Hugger Fans

• 44‐inch• 52‐inch

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
86

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fan

• DOE selected baseline models typical of the most comm

efficient ceiling fans offered in the market, i.e., ‘market

– DOE research showed that the most common models on 

flat‐blade fans with single‐phase induction motors.

– However, the least efficient models on the market had “u

non‐flat blades.

• The performances of both the flat‐blade and unconven

were analyzed separately.

• The final cost‐efficiency curve is an aggregate that repre

weighted average of both blade types.

– The baseline efficiency of this curve is the efficiency of th

on the market for each product class and representative s

baseline efficiency is the efficiency of the market‐minimu

blade fans.

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
87

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fans

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes

• The following tables provide both the market‐minimum 

unconventional‐blade fan efficiencies.

– The efficiency numbers circled below correspond to the b

efficiencies for the final cost‐efficiency curve.

Market Minimum Flat‐Blade Fans

Product Class/

Representative Size

Efficiency

(CFM/W)

Standard/44‐inch 66Standard/52‐inch 64Standard/60‐inch 68Hugger/44‐inch 49*Hugger/52‐inch 50*

Market M

Unconvention

Product Class/

Representative Size

Standard/44‐inch Standard/52‐inch Standard/60‐inch Hugger/44‐inch 

Hugger/52‐inch 

*The hugger ceiling fan efficiencies account for an arti
88

• DOE selected a range of ceiling fans for testing.

• These higher efficiency units were torn down and coste

– DOE calculated the cost of the individual components in e

blades, motor, motor housing, packaging, controls, final a

From this, DOE estimated the factory cost of the torn‐dow

– DOE then developed a model to estimate the factory cost 

not torn down.

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
89

• DOE used data from multiple sources to calculate how 

each design option would increase the efficiency and co

ceiling fan.

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes

• The design options, in terms of increasing efficiency de

determined to be:

1. Fan optimization2. A larger direct drive motor

3. A DC motor.

Sources:• Test Data• Manufacture• Retail Prices• Manufacture• Teardowns
90

• DOE created two separate cost‐efficiency curves by app

efficiency and cost deltas for each design option to the 

cost values of the market‐minimum flat‐blade and unco

blade fans.

• The relative market shares of the unconventional‐blade 

fans were used to aggregate the two cost‐efficiency cur

curve for each product class and representative size.

• The following efficiency levels were identified for the ag

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Efficiency Level (EL) Description

EL 0 BaselineEL 1 Aggregated Market Minimum

EL 2 EL 1 + Fan Optimization

EL 3 EL 2 + Larger Direct Drive Motors

EL 4 EL 2 + DC Motor

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
91

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes

Unconventional‐

blade fans

Flat‐blade fans

Aggregate

Cost Efficiency Curve

Factory Cost ($)

Efficiency (CFM/W)

98%

2%

Weightingsweightings market shartype.Baseline EffEfficiency oefficient fan Max‐Tech EEfficiency wmaximum e

unconventio
92

Engineering Analysis: Low‐Volume Ceiling Fan

• Since DOE research indicated that the low‐volume ceilin

manufactured by third‐party factories outside of the U.S

1.2 was used to calculate the manufacturer production 

manufacturer markup of 1.37 was applied to the MPC t

manufacturer selling price (MSP).

• The result is a set of cost‐efficiency relationships for eac

in the form of MSP as a function of CFM/W, for each pro

representative size.

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes

Factory Cost

• Direct material• Direct labor• Factory overhead• Depreciation

Manufacturer

Production

Cost (MPC)

Factory Markup

= 1.2

Factory Markup

= 1.2

Manufac

= 

Manufac

= 
93

Results of the Engineering Analysis – Low‐Volu

• The final cost‐efficiency

curves for each product

class and representative

size were used to create a

continuous relationship

between ceiling fandiameter (in) and

efficiency (CFM/W).

Standard Low‐Volume Fans (without a
94

• DOE analyzed the following representative sizes of high

two product classes:

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Engineering Analysis: High‐Volume Ceiling Fan

High‐Volume Ceiling Fans

Product Class Representative Size

HVLD

• 8‐foot• 12‐foot• 20‐foot

HVSD

• 36‐inch• 56‐inch

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
95

Engineering Analysis: High‐Volume Ceiling Fan

• The baseline model represents the most common, leas

on the market for each representative product class.

• Research showed that:

– the most common HVLD models in the market were curv

aluminum bladed fans with geared three‐phase inductio

– the most common HVSD models in the market were flat, 

with conventional AC (PSC) motors

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
96

Engineering Analysis: High‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

• The least efficient HVLD and HVSD fans on the market in 

representative sizes were identified using publicly availa

performance data.

• DOE plotted CFM/W versus fan diameter and applied a 

to obtain an equation which provided the baseline CFM

representative size in the HVSD and HVLD classes.

High‐Volume Baseline Fans

Product Class/

Representative Size Efficiency (CFM/W

HVLD/8‐foot 44.4

HVLD/12‐foot 86.7HVLD/20‐foot 171.4

HVSD/36‐inch 80.3

Determine Cost‐ HVSD/56‐inch 231.0

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
97

• Higher efficiency levels were identified using the efficie

retailer and manufacturer websites, manufacturer interlow‐volume fan analysis for the cost and efficiency relat

• The costs at each efficiency level were determined by b

the fan’s MPC from advertised purchase prices.

─ For HVSD fans, DOE used the process shown below to cal

Engineering Analysis: High‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes

U.S. Manufacturer

Selling Price

(MSP)

U.S. Manufacturer

Production Cost

(MPC)

─ For HVLD fans, because DOE assumed HVLD fan manufactu

own production facilities, only the dealer and manufacturewere applied to the fan’s purchase price to calculate the M

Manufacturer Markup

= 1.37

Manufacturer Markup

= 1.37

D

Tar

D

Tar

• Direct material• Direct labor• Factory overhead• Depreciation
98

• Similar to the low‐volume engineering analysis, DOE cre

efficiency deltas for each screened‐in design option for 

volume engineering analysis.

• The design options, from least efficient to most efficien

– HVLD fan:1. Eight to six blades2. Airfoil blades

3. DC motor– HVSD fan:

1. Curved blades2. Airfoil blades

3. DC motor

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Engineering Analysis: High‐Volume Ceiling Fan

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
99

Engineering Analysis: High‐Volume Ceiling Fan

• The following efficiency levels were identified for the co

relationship.

– For HVLD ceiling fans:

– For HVSD ceiling fans:

Select Baseline

Efficiency Levels

Identify Higher

Efficiency

Units

Develop

Efficiency Levels for

Analysis

Efficiency Level (EL) Description

EL 0 BaselineEL 1 EL 0 + Curved Blades

EL 2 EL 0 + Airfoil Blades

EL 3 EL 2 + DC Motor

Efficiency Level (EL) Description

EL 0 BaselineEL 1 EL 0 + Six Blades

EL 2 EL 1 + Airfoil Blades

EL 3 EL 2 + DC Motor

Determine Cost‐

Efficiency

Relationship

Choose Product

Classes and

Representative

Sizes
100

Results of the Engineering Analysis – High Volu

High‐Volume Large Diameter Fans

• The final cost‐efficiency curves for each product class and representat

used to create a continuous relationship between ceiling fan diamete

efficiency (CFM/W).
101

Results of the Engineering Analysis – High Volu

High‐Volume Small Diameter Fans

• For HVSD fans, a piecewise approach was used to best demonstrate t

between ceiling fan diameter (in) and efficiency (CFM/W).
102

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
103

• Purpose

– Determine purchase prices for all efficiency levels based on

manufacturer selling price (MSP)

– Characterize product distribution channels and market segm

• Definition

– Baseline markups relate the MSP of product with baseline e

the consumer purchase price

– Incremental markups relate the incremental change in MSP 

with higher efficiency to the incremental change in consume

price

• Incremental markups cover only expenses that vary with MSP 

expenses that increase with equipment efficiency

Markups Analysis
104

Markups Analysis• Distribution Channels for Low‐Volume CFs

• Distribution Channels for High‐Volume CFs

Manufacturer Electric Wholesaler Contractor Consumer

Home

Improvement

Center

Showroom

Manufacturer Dealer Consumer

In‐House

Dealer
105

Markups Analysis

• Home Improvement Center and Showroom Markups:

– 10‐K reports were used to estimate markups for three major 

– DOE also used the 2007 U.S. Census Annual Retail Trade Surv

Building Material and Supplies Dealers.”

• Showroom markups estimates were based on input from m

interviews.

• Wholesaler and Contractor Markups:

– The 2007 U.S. Census Annual Wholesaler Trade Report for “E

electronic appliance, television and radio set merchant whol

used to develop wholesaler markups.

– DOE used 2013 RSMeans Electrical Cost Data to develop cont

• Dealer markups are based on 10‐K reports.• Tariff and Shipping Costs:

– Applicable for low‐volume CFs and high‐volume small diamet
106

Markups Analysis• Markups for Low‐Volume CFs

• Markups for High‐Volume CFs

Distribution

Channel

Manufacturer  Home

Center  Consumer

Manufacturer  Wholesaler

 Contractor  Consumer

Manufactu

 

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline 

Manufacturer 1.37 1.37 

Home Center 1.50 1.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Wholesaler ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.25 1.10 ‐‐ Contractor ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.10 1.10 ‐‐ Showroom ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.00 Sales Tax 1.071 1.071 

Distribution

Channel

Manufacturer  Dealer  Customer Manufacturer  In‐house D

Baseline Incremental Baseline 

Manufacturer 1.37 1.37

Dealer/ In‐

house Dealer 1.74 1.21 1.74 

Sales Tax 1.071 1.071 1.071 
107

Issue 27: Distribution Channels and Markups for High‐Volume CFs

DOE requests data and information on distribution channels and pr

markups for high‐volume CFs.

Issue 28: Shipping and Tariff Costs

DOE requests data and information on who pays the shipping and t

for imported fans in each distribution channel, especially for high‐v

small‐diameter CFs and for the low‐volume CFs sold through a who

Markups Analysis
108

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
109

Energy Use Characterization• Purpose:

• Develop distributions of annual energy consumption repre

purchasers in U.S.

• Annual energy use is the site energy use associated with ope

product.

• These distributions are used in the LCC and PBP analysis to ca

operating costs.

• Method:

• Develop purchaser samples for low‐volume and high‐volum

• Develop distribution of operating hours at each speed.

• Determine active mode energy use by multiplying operatin

power consumed at each speed.

• Determine standby energy consumption by multiplying sta

standby power.

• Total annual energy use is sum of active‐ and standby‐mod
110

Energy Use Characterization• Monte Carlo sample of 10,000 purchasers.

• Low‐volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in residential applications only.

• Randomly selected households from CF owners in the Ener

Information Administration’s (EIA) 2009 Residential Energy

Consumption Survey (RECS).

• High‐volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in commercial and industrial applicatio

• Commercial‐industrial split estimated based on the floor spac

likely CF installation locations

Purchaser Samples
111

Energy Use Characterization• Low‐volume CFs:

• Used information from a survey of CF owners performed by 

Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL study).

• Average of 6.45 hours per day.

• Average of 41% of time at high speed, 37% at medium, and 2

• Sampled from census‐division‐specific hours of use distribu

each CF in the Monte Carlo sample.

• High‐volume CFs:

• Used feedback from manufacturer interviews.

• Average of 12 hours per day.

• Average 10% of time at high speed, 80% at medium, and 10% 

• No difference in operating hours by geographic location or 

Operating Hours
112

Energy Use Characterization• Low‐volume CFs:

• Provided by engineering analysis.

• Regarding energy use of multi‐mount CFs: when analyzing 

for the hugger product class, DOE assumed an equivalent E

standard product class (and vice‐versa).

• High‐volume CFs:

• Power at high speed provided by engineering analysis.

• Used ratios between speeds from low‐volume engineering 

determine power at low and medium speed.

• Medium: 53% of high‐speed power.

• Low: 23% of high‐speed power.

Power During Operation
113

Energy Use Characterization• Low‐volume CFs:

• Standby for all DC fans (i.e., 2% of CFs at EL4).

• Standby for all AC fans with remote control.

• Estimated 7.4% of fans have remote control, based on LBNL s

• Power during standby = 1.4 watts, based on manufacturer 

• High‐volume CFs:

• Standby for all DC small‐diameter fans.

• Standby for all large‐diameter CFs, because of variable freq

• Power during standby = 1.4 watts. Assumed to be the sam

volume CFs.

• CFs with standby functionality were assumed to be in sta

during all hours not in active mode.

Standby
114

Energy Use Characterization• DOE issued a Request for Information on this topic in Oct

• DOE considered the following sources to inform its positi

• 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey

• Florida Solar Energy Center: Are Energy Savings Due to Ceiling Fans Just H

• San Diego Gas & Electric: Statewide Investor Owned Utility Ceiling Fan Stu

• Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light Kit Use in the U.S.—Results of a Survey o

Mechanical Turk

• ASHRAE Standard 55‐2010

• AcuPOLL® Precision Research, Inc.: Survey of Consumer Ceiling Fan Usage 

Operations

• Due to the negligible impact on shipments, DOE believes 

interactions between ceiling fan use and air conditioning 

national level would be negligible.

• Consequently, DOE has assumed no impact on air conditi

usage in the energy use analysis.

Interaction Between CFs and Air Conditioning
115

Energy Use Characterization

Example Results for 52” Low‐Volume Standard Fa

EL Energy Use (kWh/yr) Savings (kWh/yr)

0 145 01 106 392 93 523 82 634 57 88
116

Energy Use Characterization

Average Low‐Volume Standard Results

EL

44‐inch diameter 52‐inch diameter 60‐inch diam

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

S

(k

0 96 0 145 0 189 

1 70 25 106 39 139 2 64 31 93 52 116 3 59 37 82 63 101 4 41 55 57 88 70 

Average Low‐Volume Hugger Results

EL

44‐inch diameter 52‐inch diameter

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

0 108 0 131 0

1 79 29 96 352 76 32 87 443 69 38 77 544 48 59 54 78
117

Energy Use Characterization

Average High‐Volume Small‐Diameter Result

Average High‐Volume Large‐Diameter Result

EL

36‐inch diameter 56‐inch diameter

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

0 182 0 232 0

1 170 12 217 152 130 52 165 663 75 106 95 137

EL

8‐foot diameter 12‐foot diameter 20‐foot di

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

Savings

(kWh/yr)

Energy Use

(kWh/yr)

0 1532 0 2115 0 2698 

1 1473 59 2034 81 2595 2 923 609 1274 842 1624 3 456 1076 627 1488 799 
118

Issue 29: Operating Hours for High‐Volume CFs

DOE requests data and information on operating hours for high‐vo

Issue 35: CFs Impact on Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment

DOE requests data and information on the impact that CF operatio

the operation of air conditioners and heating equipment.

Energy Use Characterization
119

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
120

Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP)• Purpose

• Provide an economic evaluation from the end‐user’s perspective.

• Life‐Cycle Cost (LCC) is the total purchaser cost over the life of a p

• Payback Period (PBP) is the time required to recover the increase

price of more energy‐efficient products through reduced operatin

• Method

• Use purchaser samples developed in the energy use analysis.

• Determine total installed costs for each EL.• Determine operating costs for first year and lifetime of product.

• Calculate PBP by dividing average increase in installed cost by ave

decrease in first‐year operating cost.

• Calculate LCC by adding installed cost and lifetime operating costs

• LCC savings are calculated with respect to the efficiency of a prod

purchaser would purchase in the absence of a new standard.

Overview
121

LCC and PBP• Monte Carlo sample of 10,000 purchasers.

• Low‐volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in residential applications only.

• Randomly selected households from CF owners in RECS.

• High‐volume CFs:

• Assumed to be used in commercial and industrial applicatio

• Used same geographic distribution as CF owners in RECS.

• Estimated proportions of commercial and industrial purcha

• Small‐diameter: 80% commercial, 20% industrial.

• Large‐diameter: 20% commercial, 80% industrial.

Purchaser Samples
122

LCC and PBP• Distribution of fan diameters used in the LCC calculation, 

based on distribution of models on the market and manu

feedback.

Estimated Market Share by Fan Diameter

Diameter Probability (%)

Low‐volume standard

44‐inch 21.1

52‐inch 72.560‐inch 6.5

Low‐volume hugger

44‐inch 46.2

52‐inch 53.8

Diameter Probab

High‐volume small‐dia

36‐inch 3

56‐inch 6

High‐volume large‐dia

8‐foot 1

12‐foot 120‐foot 6

Low‐Volume High‐Volume
123

LCC and PBP• ELs that purchasers would purchase in absence of a stand

• Estimated base‐case distribution of ELs using distribution 

on the market.

Base‐Case Distribution of ELs

EL

Low‐Volume High‐Volume

Standard Hugger Small‐diameter Large‐diame

0 3.3 3.2 25.2 8.7

1 4.9 4.7 24.3 34.82 29.6 28.4 37.6 56.53 58.4 59.4 12.9 04 3.8 4.3 ‐‐ ‐‐

Percentage of each EL in the Base Case in 201
124

LCC and PBP• Purchase price provided by markups analysis.

• Price learning incorporated to account for decreases in ma

costs due to production experience by compliance date (m

provided in the shipments section).

• Remote control cost added to 7.4% of low‐volume AC CFs

• Remote control already included in price of DC fans from e

analysis.

• Sales tax determined by geographic location of purchaser

• Installation cost not included because it does not appear 

with EL.

Total Installed Cost
125

LCC and PBP• Annual energy consumption provided by energy use anal

• Electricity price estimated using data from EIA:

• Estimated price based on geographic location and econom

Annual Energy Cost
126

LCC and PBP• Maintenance cost not included because no evidence that 

with EL.

• Included repair cost for DC fans.

• Included repair cost for 6.5% of DC fans.

• Represents the cost to purchaser of higher DC failure rate.

• Assumed failure would occur in middle of fan’s lifetime.

• Estimated purchaser repair costs from manufacturer feedb

Repair and Maintenance Costs

Product class Repair cost

Low‐volume standard $150

Low‐volume hugger $150High‐volume small‐diameter $150High‐volume large‐diameter $1000
127

LCC and PBP• Estimated lifetime using shipments data for low‐volume f

age distribution from the LBNL study.

• Assumed the same lifetime distribution for high‐volume f

Lifetime

• Lifetime distribution:

• Minimum: 5 years.

• Median: 13 years.

• Mean: 13.8 years.

• Maximum: 31 years.
128

LCC and PBP• Used to discount operating costs to year of purchase (i.e. 

• Represents the opportunity cost of funds used to purchase 

• Low‐volume fans for replacement

• Assumed all fans sold through home center and showroom 

replacement products.

• Used a distribution of debt and asset classes for purchasing 

• e.g., stocks, mutual funds, savings accounts, bonds, loans

• Low‐volume fans for installation in new homes

• Assumed all fans sold through wholesaler‐contractor chann

in new homes.

• Used a distribution of mortgage rates.

• High‐volume

• Used a distribution of weighted average cost of capital.

Discount Rates
129

LCC and PBP

Low‐Volume Standard Results

Low‐Volume Hugger Results

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple

Payback

Period

(years)

Average

Lifetime

(years)

Installed

Cost

First Year’s

Operating

Cost

Lifetime

Operating

Cost

LCC

0 107 17 182 289 ‐‐‐ 13.81 107 13 133 240 0 13.82 107 11 117 224 0 13.83 120 10 104 224 1.8 13.84 149 7 72 221 4.1 13.8

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple

Payback

Period

(years)

Average

Lifetime

(years)

Installed

Cost

First Year’s

Operating

Cost

Lifetime

Operating

Cost

LCC

0 94 15 159 253 ‐‐‐ 13.8

1 94 11 117 211 0 13.82 94 10 109 203 0 13.83 105 9 98 202 1.9 13.84 129 6 68 197 4.1 13.8
130

LCC and PBP

High‐Volume Small‐Diameter Results

High‐Volume Large‐Diameter Results

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple

Payback

Period

(years)

Average

Lifetime

(years)

Installed

Cost

First Year’s

Operating

Cost

Lifetime

Operating

Cost

LCC

0 68 23 208 276 ‐‐‐ 13.81 73 22 195 268 3.7 13.82 75 17 149 224 1.1 13.83 100 10 92 192 2.4 13.8

EL

Average Costs (2013$) Simple

Payback

Period

(years)

Average

Lifetime

(years)

Installed

Cost

First Year’s

Operating

Cost

Lifetime

Operating

Cost

LCC

0 3814 221 2007 5821 ‐‐‐ 13.8

1 3801 213 1930 5731 0 13.82 4063 133 1208 5271 2.8 13.83 5730 66 637 6367 12.3 13.8
131

Issue 7: Market Shares by EL and Product Class

DOE requests information and comment on the market shares by e

level for each product class.

Issue 9: Lifetimes of High‐Volume CFs

For high‐volume CFs, DOE assumed the product lifetime is the same 

low‐volume CFs. DOE requests comments and data on product lifet

high‐volume CFs.Issue 10: CF Usage and Life Expectancy

DOE invites comment, input, and data on CF life expectancy and the

relationship between CF usage and CF life expectancy.

Issue 11: Repair Costs

DOE invites comment, input, and data that can improve the estima

costs, particularly repairs costs associated with DC motors.

LCC and PBP
132

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
133

• Purpose

– Quantify changes over time in product shipments due to po

amended energy efficiency standards over analysis period 

– Estimate the disaggregation of shipments into product clas

efficiency levels over time

• Method

– Total shipments estimated using a stock‐accounting metho

calibrated to historical shipments data

– Model accounts for product replacements, new constructio

installations into existing buildings

– Shipments disaggregated by efficiency level using a consum

model sensitive to first cost for low‐volume ceiling fans and 

and operating cost for high‐volume ceiling fans

Shipments Analysis: Overview
134

Shipments Analysis: Low‐Volume CF Inputs & A

Input Data Description/Source

Replacements Historical shipments from Appliance Magazine, N

Energy Star. Retirement function from lifetime.

New Construction Annual Energy Outlook 2014, penetration from RE

Existing Buildings Estimate of increasing penetration from RECS

Market Share Model counts from in‐store visits and online retai
135

• Sector Usage

• Estimates from manufacturers indicated ≈5% of low‐volume CF sh

commercial sector

• Assumed similar usage between residential and commercial secto

• Analyzed all low‐volume CFs as being in residential sector

• Market shares by product class:

• DOE used shelf survey data to estimate CF market shares.

• DOE estimated multi‐mount CFs installation configuration using re

AcuPOLL survey*.

Shipments Analysis: Low‐Volume CF Inputs & A

*AcuPOLL® Precision Research, Inc. Survey of Consumer Ceiling Fan Usage and Operations. May 31, 2013.

Estimated Market

Shares

Multi‐Moun

Installation

Configuratio
136

Issue 5: Market Shares by Installation Configuration

DOE estimated that 21% of fans are hugger, 26% of fans are standa

are multi‐mount. DOE welcomes comment, data, or information on 

estimates.Issue 15: CFs Installation ConfigurationsDOE requests information regarding the similarity of installation di

between all CFs and the subset of multi‐mount fans. DOE also requ

information or comment on the assumption that "close‐mount" CF

categorized as “standard” CFs and not “hugger” CFs.

Shipments Analysis: Low‐Volume CF Inputs & A
137

• High‐Volume Small Diameter

– Same retirement function as low‐volume CFs

– Scaled shipments of low‐volume fans by 0.12 assuming a si

penetration in commercial/industrial spaces

• High‐Volume Large Diameter Shipments

– Same retirement function as low‐volume CFs

– Assumed linear shipments trend associated with new insta

starting in 2000 to match 2013 stock estimate.

Shipments Analysis: High‐Volume CF Inputs & A

Issue 4: Shipments of High‐Volume CFs

DOE requests data and information on current and historical shipm

both high‐volume large‐diameter CFs and high‐volume small‐diame
138

Shipments Analysis: Schematic

Replacements

New

Construction

New

Installations

Retirement FunctionHistorical ShipmentsAEO ProjectionRECS 2009

Total Shipments

Consumer‐ChoiceModel
139

• Systematic decreases in manufacturing costs due to prod

experience are accounted for by incorporating price learn

curves.

• Price learning (with a learning rate of 6%) was applied to 

components in DC motors used in CFs.

• Applied to incremental cost difference between DC and A

Shipments Analysis: Price Learning
140

Shipments Analysis: Price Learning

Issue 31: DC Motors Learning Rate

DOE adopted a learning rate of 6% applied to the cost premium ass

a brushless DC motor based on information from a technical expert 

volume CFs. DOE requests stakeholder input on the validity of this 

rate, as applied to low‐volume and high‐volume fans.

Issue 32: Magnet Used in DC Motors

DOE requests information on the type of magnet used in DC motor

associated cost of the magnet.
141

• The consumer‐choice model projects market share for ea

class at each EL

• Consumer chooses amongst set of finite options based o

sensitivity to first cost and operating cost

• Model calculates probability consumer will choose each o

• High‐volume CFs: Consumers sensitive to first cost and O

• Low‐volume CFs: Consumers only

sensitive to first cost based on

analysis of NPD data

Shipments Analysis: Consumer‐Choice Model

Issue 33: CF Product Class Switching

DOE requests input and data regarding

the likelihood of consumers choosing

between options in different product

classes.
142

• DOE uses a relative price elasticity to estimate decrease i

shipments due to a price increase due to implementation 

standard

• Since low‐volume CFs and CFLKs are usually packaged tog

DOE also considered the impact of a CFLK standard on 

shipments

Shipments Analysis: Impact of Standards

Issue 34: Price Elasticity

DOE requests data and information to more accurately estimate a p

elasticity of demand specific to CFs. Specifically, DOE requests conc

on industry‐wide shipments‐weighted retail price and efficiency an

household income.
143

• Purpose

‒ Determine the projected national energy savings and consu

national net present value of a potential standard.

• Method

‒ Develop annual series of national energy and economic imp

‒ Use the shipments model to estimate the total stock of CFs 

each year.

‒ Aggregate the costs and energy use per unit in any given ye

‒ Report estimates for economic impact as change in consum

Net Present Value (NPV) (in constant year dollars).

‒ Account for the time‐value of money through defined disco

National Impact Analysis: Overview
144

National Impact Analysis Inputs

Input Description

Total Installed Cost Per‐unit annual weighted‐average values as a function of efficiency le

the LCC analysis.

Repair and

Maintenance Costs

Repair and maintenance costs are assumed to be constant across eff

Higher repair rate for CFs with DC motor.

Annual Energy Use Per‐unit annual weighted‐average values as a function of efficiency le

energy use analysis.

Base‐Case Efficiencies Shipments‐weighted efficiencies determined for the compliance year 

consumer‐choice model in the base case.

Standards‐CaseForecasted Efficiencies

Shipments‐weighted efficiencies determined for the compliance year 

consumer‐choice model for each potential standards case.

Energy Prices Average national forecasted energy prices from EIA AEO 2014 forecas

extrapolation to 2048.

Full‐Fuel Cycle Multiplier for the primary fuel (electricity) used by CFs.

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guideli

Present Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2014.

National Impact Analysis
145

National Impact Analysis

NES(y) (AEC (y) AEC (y)) RF μ(y)  base  std  

Where:NES(y) = National Energy Saving in year y (quads), and

AECbase(y) = base case annual national energy consumption, conside

full fuel cycle, for all product classes combined in year y 

and

AECstd(y) = standards case annual national energy consumption, con

the full fuel cycle, for all product classes combined in yea

(quads), and

RF = rebound rate factor = 1‐rebound rate

μ(y) = full fuel cycle multiplier

• National energy primary energy savings is calculated using 

following equation:
146

National Impact Analysis

NPV  PVS  PVC

Where:NPV = National net present value (2013$)

PVS = present value savings in operating cost (including costs for

energy, repair, and maintenance in 2013$), and

PVC = present value of increase in total installed cost (including cost

for equipment and installation in 2013$)

• National Net Present Value is calculated using the followin

NPV was calculated using 3% and 7% discount rates:
147

EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 

LV – Standard 0.113 0.176 0.393 LV – Hugger 0.048 0.072 0.174 HVSD 0.173 0.392 0.745HVLD 0.008 0.054 0.154

National Impact Analysis: Net FFC Energy Savin

Energy Savings (quads)
148

National Impact Analysis: Net Present Value

Product Class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 

LV – Standard 0.701 1.003 1.228 LV – Hugger 0.296 0.396 0.529 

HVSD 0.854 1.995 3.675HVLD 0.026 0.170 0.166

Product Class EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 

LV – Standard 0.278 0.386 0.325 LV – Hugger 0.117 0.151 0.136 

HVSD 0.333 0.794 1.454HVLD 0.009 0.055 ‐0.026

NPV at 7% discount rate (billions 2013$)NPV at 3% discount rate (billions 2013$)
149

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
150

Preliminary MIA• Purpose

– The manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) identifies the impacts of 

conservation standards on manufacturers.

• Phase 1

– DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and id

important issues that require consideration.

• Phase 2

– DOE prepares an industry cash‐flow model and an interview ques

guide subsequent discussions.

• Phase 3

– DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of standa

quantitatively (using the Government Regulatory Impact Model) a

qualitatively (impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, di

employment, and regulatory burden).
151

Issue 39: Manufacturer Impact Analysis

DOE requests comment on its identification of key issues and reque

information from interested parties that can assist in evaluating the 

impact on ceiling fan manufacturers.

Issue 37: Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

DOE invites interested parties to provide information regarding any 

businesses that manufacture ceiling fans and should be consulted b

publishes a NOPR.

Issue 38: Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

DOE requests feedback on subgroups to analyze and/or characteris

appropriate for a separate subgroup analysis.

Preliminary MIA: Ceiling Fan Issues for Comme
152

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
153

Monetizatioof Emission Reductions Benefits

Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Utility Impact Analysis

Employment Impact Analysis

Revise

Preliminary

Analysis

Framework

Document

Prelim

Analysis NOPR Final Rule

Analyses for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (N

Emissions Analysis
154

NOPR Analyses

• LCC Subgroup Analysis

– Effects on various national consumer subgroups

• Manufacturer Impact Analysis

– Continue work begun in the preliminary MIA

• Employment Impact Analysis

– Indirect effects on national employment

• Utility Impact Analysis

– Effects on generation capacity of utilities

• Emissions Analysis

– Effects on airborne pollutant emissions

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits

– Monetary benefits from emissions reduction

• Regulatory Impact Analysis

– Potential for non‐regulatory approaches
155

CF ECS Pre‐Analysis Presentation Overview

3 Screening Analysis5 Markups Analysis1 Scope of Coverage6 Energy Use2 Market & Technology

11 Closing Remarks

4 Engineering Analysis7 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis8 Shipments; National Impact Analysis9 Preliminary MIA

10 NOPR Analyses
156

How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the CF rulemaking by:

– Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans;

– Docket Number EERE‐2012‐BT‐STD‐0045; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AC87.

• Email: CeilingFan2012STD0045@ee.doe.gov

Postal: Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program,Mailstop EE‐2J

1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585‐0121

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Progra950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20024Tel: 202 586‐2945

Energy Conservation Standards TSD Comment Period clo

November 28, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT
157

ECS PRE‐ANALYSIS BACKUP SLIDES
158

Shipments
159

• Low‐Volume Ceiling Fans

– Fit NPD data of market share as a

function of retail price to determine

consumer sensitivity to price

– Assumed consumers do not consider

fan efficiency in purchasing decision.

• High Volume Ceiling Fans

– Assumed consumer sensitivity to both

first cost and operating cost

– Estimated sensitivities using first cost,

operating cost, and market share at

each EL for HVLD fans.

Shipments Analysis: Estimating Sensitivities

Low Volume High Volume

First Cost ‐0.028 ‐0.033

Operating Cost ‐0.086

Parameter Sensitivities for Consumer‐Choice Model
160

– Price elasticity (e) relates decrease in shipments to an 

in price due to standard

– DOE’s estimate for the price elasticity of home applian

based on a study of the price elasticity for refrigerato

washers, and dishwashers

Shipments Analysis: Impact of Standards

    Base Std Base Price ΔPrice Shipments Shipments 1 e

Where:

= Shipments in a standard case,

= Base case shipments,

= relative price elasticity (‐0.34 in first year),

= change in price due to a standard,

= price in the base case

Std Shipments

Base Shipments

ΔPrice

Base Price

e