i PRELIMINARY T ECHNICAL S UPPORT D OCUMENT EX ECUTIVE SUMMARY

T ABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES

................................ ................................ ...... 1

ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSES AND THE PRELIMINARY

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

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

ES.3 KEY RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSES

................................ ................................ ....... 4

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

................................ ................................ ..... 4

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ 5

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis

................................ ................................ ............................ 5

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Classes Analyzed

................................ ................................ . 5

ES.3.3.2 Engineering Analysis Results

................................ ................................ . 6

ES.3.4 Markups Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ 17

ES.3.5 Energy Use Characteriz ation

................................ ................................ ............... 18

ES.3.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

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

ES.3.6.1 Results of Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

................... 21

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

................................ ................................ ............................. 26

ES.3.8 National Impact Anal ysis

................................ ................................ .................... 27

ES.3.8.1 Analysis of National Energy Savings

................................ ................... 28

ES.3.8.2 Analysis of Consumer Net Present Value

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

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

................................ ........................ 31

ES.3.10 Other Analyses

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 32

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

................................ ............. 32

ES.4.1 Scope of Coverage of Electric Motors

................................ ................................ 32

ES.4.2 Screening Analysis

................................ ................................ .............................. 33

ES.4.3 Engineering Analysis Methodology

................................ ................................ .... 33

ES.4.4 Engine ering Analysis Results

................................ ................................ .............. 33

ES.4.5 Motor Distribution Across Sectors

................................ ................................ ...... 33

ES.4.6 Motor Distribution Across Applications

................................ ............................. 33

ES.4.7 Data on Operating Hours and Loading

................................ ................................ 33

ES.4.8 Prod uct Price Determination

................................ ................................ ............... 33

ES.4.9 Repair Costs

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

ES.4.10 Frequency of Repair

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

ES.4.11 Maintenance Costs

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

ES.4.12 Installation Costs

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

ES.4.13 Motor Lifetimes

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

ES.4.14 Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

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

ES.4.15 Efficiency Trends

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

ES.4.16 Estimated Shipments

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

ES.4.17 Purchase Price El asticity

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

ES.4.18 Scaling Methodology for Manufacturer Selling Price

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

ES.4.19 Scaling Methodology for Motor Weights

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

ES.4.20 Trial Standard Levels

................................ ................................ .......................... 35ii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diag ram of Electric Motor Rulemaking Analyses

................................ ........ 2 Figure ES.3.1 NEMA Design B, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering

A nalysis Curve

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8 Figure ES.3.2 NEMA Design B, 30 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 Figure ES.3.3 NEMA Design B, 75 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 12 Figure ES.3.4 NEMA Design C, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 Figure ES.3.5 NEMA Design C, 50 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16

LIST OF TABLE S

Table ES.3.1 Design Characteristics of the Five Representative Units Analyzed

....................... 6

Table ES.3.2 NEMA Design B Motor Candidate Standard Levels

................................ .............. 6

Table ES.3.3 Design C 5 Horsepower Motor Candidate Standard Levels

................................ ... 7

Table ES.3.4 NEMA Design C 50 Horsepower Motor Candidat e Standard Levels

.................... 7

Table ES.3.5 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design B 5 Horsepower Motor

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9

Table ES.3.6 NEMA Design B 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Characteristics

. 9

Table ES.3.7 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design B 30 Horsepower Motor

................................ ................................ ................................ 10

Table ES.3.8 NEMA Design B 30 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Characteristics

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 11

Table ES.3.9 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design B 75 Horsepower Motor

................................ ................................ ................................ 12

Table ES.3.10 NEMA Design B 75 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Characteristics

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 13

Table ES.3.11 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design C 5 Horsepower Motor

................................ ................................ ................................ 14

Table ES.3.12 NEMA Design C 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Characteristics 15

Table ES.3.13 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design C 50 Horsepower Motor

................................ ................................ ................................ 16

Table ES.3.14 N EMA Design C 50 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Characteristics

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 17 Table ES.3.15 Summary of Markups for the Three Primary Distribution Channels for Medium

Electric Motors

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18 Table ES.3.16 Average Annual Energy Consumption by Efficie ncy Level for Representative

Units

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 19iii Table ES.3.17 Representative Units for Preliminary Analysis

................................ .................... 22

Table ES.3.18 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 1: NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Motor

............................... 22

Table ES.3.19 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 2: NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 30 Horsepower, 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

............................. 23

Table ES.3.20 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 3: NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 75 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Motor

............................. 23

Table ES.3.21 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 4: NEMA Design C, T

- Frame, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Motor

............................... 24

Table ES.3.22 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Represe ntative Unit 5: NEMA Design C, T

- Frame, 50 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Motor

............................. 24

Table ES.3.23 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 6: Fire Pump, NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Motor

....... 25

Table ES.3.24 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 7: Fire Pump, NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 30 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Motor

..... 25

Table ES.3.25 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 8: Fire Pump, NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 75 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Motor

..... 26 Table ES.3.26 Annual and Cumulative Shipments Projection for Electric Motors (AEO reference case)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 27 Table ES.3.27 Summary of Cumulative National Energy Savings in Quads (2015

- 2044)

......... 29

Table ES.3.28 Net Present Value of Customer Impacts (billion 2011$)

................................ ..... 30 Table ES.3.29 Cumulative National Energy Savings and Net Present Value R esults

................ 311 ES.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. § 6311, et seq., as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) established energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) after October 24, 1997. Then, in December 2007, Congress passed into la w the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Pub.

L. No. 110

– 140)

. Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation standards

f

or a larger scope of motors not previously covered. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2))

EPCA also directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule no later than 24 months after the effective date of the previous final rule to determine whether to amend the stan dards in effect for such product. Any such amendment shall apply to electric motors manufactured after a date which is five years after

–

(i) the effective date of the previous amendment; or (ii) if the previous final rule did not amend the standards, t he earliest date by which a previous amendment could have been effective. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4 ) (B ))

EISA 2007 , which went into effect on December 19, 2010, constitutes the most recent amendment to EPCA and energy conservation standards for electric motor s. DOE will determine whether to promulgate amended energy conservation standards for electric motors and, if so, what level the new standards should be set at based on an in

- depth consideration of the technological feasibility, economic justification, an d energy savings of candidate standards levels as required by section 325 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)

- (p), 6316(a)) Any such amended

standards that DOE establishes would take effect December 19, 2015.

This executive summary describes current activities a nd key results from the preliminary analyses that DOE conducted in its review of potential amendments to the energy conservation

standards for electric motor s

. Furthermore, the executive summary identifies issues about which

DOE seeks comments from intere sted parties

. These issues are addressed in more detail in chapter 2 of the preliminary technical support document ( preliminary TSD ) and will be discussed in a future public meeting.

To evaluate and consider impacts under the seven EPCA factors for economic justification (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) , 6316(a) ) , DOE conducts a detailed analysis of regulatory impacts on a product and presents them in a technical support document ( preliminary

TSD )

. Figure ES.1.1 summarizes the analytical components of this regulatory analysis methodology

. The focus of this figure is the center column, identified as “Analyses.” The columns labeled “Key Inputs” and “Key Outputs ” show how the analyses fit into the rulemaking process, and how the analyses relate to each other

. Key inputs are the types of data and other information that the analyses require

. Some key inputs exist in public databases; DOE collects other inputs fro m interested parties or persons with special knowledge and expertise

. Key2 outputs are analytical results that feed directly into the standards

- setting process

. Arrows connecting analyses show types of information that feed from one analysis to another.

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Electric Motor Rulemaking Analyses Utility Impact

Analysis

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

Final Rule Approaches Key Inputs Analyses Key Outputs

Market and Technology
Assessment

Screening Analysis

Engineering Analysis

Product Price

Determination Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

National Impact Analysis Energy Use

Revise Pre limina ry Analyses

C onsumer Sub

- Group Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

Employment Impact Analysis

Revise Analyses • Product Classes

• Technology Options

• Industry Cash Flow

• Sub

- Group Cash

- Flow

• Direct Employment Impacts

• Competitive Impacts

• Cumulative Regulatory Burden • Product Designs

• Life

- Cycle Costs

• Payback Periods

• National Energy Savings

• Net Present Values

• National Employment Impacts

• Revised Results • Characterize Industry

• Market Segmentation

• Non

- Regulatory Programs Framework Document

• Efficiency

- Level Approach

• Design Option Approach

• Energy Prices

• Installation Costs

• Maintenance & Repair Costs

• Accounting Approach

• Backcast and Forecast

• Market Saturation

• Stakeholder Comments

• Demographics

• Manufacturer Interviews

• GRIM Analysis

• Emission Rates

• National Energy Savings

• Stakeholder Comments • Identify Firms/Products

• Historical Shipments

• Retail Price Collection and Analysis

• Manufacturer Prices

• Average Costs

• Manufacturer Financial Data Design Options Product Classes

Retail

Prices Design Energy/ Use

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANO) • Efficiency/Performance • Commercial Products

Candidate Standard

Levels • Analysis of Energy Use

Data

E missions

Regulatory Impact Analysis Technology Options

• Emission Estimates • Utility Load Factors

• National Energy Savings

• Non

- Regulatory
Alternatives • NEMS

- BT

• ImSET

• NEMS

- BT • Design Options

• Energy Price Forecasts

• Site

- to

- Source Factors • Energy

- Efficiency Levels

Direct Employment Impacts

• National Energy Savings

• National Product Costs

• National Operating Costs • Utility Impacts • Analysis of Market Data

• Analysis of Product Data

• Life

- Cycle Costs

• Payback Periods • Installation Costs

• Maint Costs

• Repair Costs • UEC

• Energy Prices Annual Energy Use (UEC)

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis • Manufacturer Prices

• Average Costs • Conversion Capital Expenditures

• Direct Employment Impacts

• National Energy Savings

• Net Present Values • Trial Standard Levels ( TSLs )

TSLs • Product Prototypes

Energy

- Efficiency

Levels

• Department of Justice Review Product Designs

Utility Impact

Analysis

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

Final Rule Approaches Key Inputs Analyses Key Outputs

Market and Technology
Assessment

Screening Analysis

Engineering Analysis

Product Price

Determination Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

National Impact Analysis Energy Use

Analys

- Group Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

Employment Impact Analysis

Revise Analyses • Product Classes

• Technology Options

• Industry Cash Flow

• Sub

- Group Cash

- Flow

• Direct Employment Impacts

• Competitive Impacts

• Cumulative Regulatory Burden • Product Designs

• Life

- Cycle Costs

• Payback Periods

• National Energy Savings

• Net Present Values

• National Employment Impacts

• Revised Results • Characterize Industry

• Market Segmentation

• Non

- Regulatory Programs Framework Document

• Efficiency

- Level Approach

• Design Option Approach

• Energy Prices

• Installation Costs

• Maintenance & Repair Costs

• Accounting Approach

• Backcast and Forecast

• Market Saturation

• Stakeholder Comments

• Demographics

• Manufacturer Interviews

• GRIM Analysis

• Emission Rates

• National Energy Savings

• Stakeholder Comments • Identify Firms/Products

• Historical Shipments

• Retail Price Collection and Analysis

• Manufacturer Prices

• Average Costs

• Manufacturer Financial Data Design Options Product Classes

Retail

Prices Design Energy/ Use

Publication of Pre liminary Analyses • Efficiency/Performance • Commercial Products

Candidate Standard

Levels • Analysis of Energy Use

Data

A nalysis

Regulatory Impact Analysis Technology Options

• Emission Estimates • Utility Load Factors

• National Energy Savings

• Non

- Regulatory
Alternatives • NEMS

- BT

• ImSET

• NEMS

- BT • Design Options

• Energy Price Forecasts

• Site

- to

- Source Factors • Energy

- Efficiency Levels

Direct Employment Impacts

• National Energy Savings

• National Product Costs

• National Operating Costs • Utility Impacts • Analysis of Market Data

• Analysis of Product Data

• Life

- Cycle Costs

• Payback Periods • Installation Costs

• Maint Costs

• Repair Costs • UEC

• Energy Prices Annual Energy Use (UEC)

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis • Manufacturer Prices

• Average Costs • Conversion Capital Expenditures

• Direct Employment Impacts

• National Energy Savings

• Net Present Values • Trial Standard Levels ( TSLs )

TSLs • Product Prototypes

Energy

- Efficiency

Levels

• Department of Justice Review Product Designs3 ES.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PREL IMINARY ANALYSES AND THE PRELIMINARY

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DO CUMENT

DOE is publish ing a notice of public meeting (NOPM) in the Federal Register, which announces the availability of the preliminary TSD , the date of the public meeting, and information pertaining to the public meeting

. In addition, the NOPM highlights the major preliminary analyses DOE has developed at this stage of the rulemaking.

The preliminary TSD describes each a nalysis in detail, providing detailed descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results

. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD provides an

overview of each preliminary analysis, the comments DOE received in response to the framework document, and DOE ’s responses to those comments

. The remaining chapters of the preliminary TSD , which are described later , address the preliminary analyses performed :

Chapter 3: A market and technology assessment that characterizes the relevant product

markets and technology options, including prototype designs

.

Chapter 4: A screening analysis that reviews each technology option to determine

whether it (1) is technologically feasible

, (2) is practicable to manufacture, install, and service

, (3) would adversely af fect product utility or product availability

, or (4) would have adverse impacts on health and safety

.

Chapter 5: An engineering analysis that develops cost

- efficiency relationships estimating the manufacturer’s cost of achieving increased efficiency. DO E determines the increased cost to the consumer through an analysis of engineering markups, which convert manufacturer production cost to manufacturer selling price (MSP)

.

Chapter 6: A markups analysis that converts the estimated MSPs derived from the

en gineering analysis to installed prices

.

Chapter 7: An energy use analysis that determines the annual energy use of the considered products

.

Chapter 8: Life

- cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses that calculate, at the consumer level, the d iscounted savings in operating costs (less maintenance and repair costs) throughout the estimated average life of the covered products, compared to any increase in the installed cost for the products likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard

.

Chapter 9: A shipments analysis that project s product shipments, which are then used to calculate the national impacts of standards on energy, net present value (NPV), and future

manufacturer cash flows

.

Chapter 10: An assessment of the aggr egate impacts at the national level of potential energy conservation standards for the considered products, as measured by the NPV of total consumer economic impacts and the national energy savings (NES ).4 Chapter 11: A customer subgroup analysis that eval uates the impacts of standards on identifiable groups of customers, such as customers of different business types, which may be disproportionately affected by an energy conservation standard.

Chapter 12: A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) th at assesses the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturers, such as effects on expenditures for capital conversion, marketing costs, shipments, and research and development costs

.

Chapter 13: An employment impact analysis that examines the effects of energy conservation standards on national employment.

Chapter 14: A utility impact analysis that examines impacts of energy conservation standards on the generation capacity of electric utilities

.

Chapter 15: An emissions analy sis that evaluates the reduced power plant emissions resulting from reduced consumption of electricity.

Chapter 16: A monetization of emission reduction benefits resulting from reduced emissions associated with potential amended standards.

Chapter 17: A regulatory impact analysis that : (1) identifies and seeks to mitigate overlapping effects of regulations on manufacturers and (2) addresses the potential for non

regulatory approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation standards.

ES.3 KEY RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSES

The following sections describe in detail the key analyses DOE performed in support of

the preliminary TSD

.

ES.3.1 Market and Technology Assessment

When initiating an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information on the p resent and past industry structure and market characteristics for the equipment

concerned

. This activity assesses the industry and equipment both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on publicly available information

. For the equipment in th e prelimin ary analyses , DOE addressed the following: (1) manufacturer market share and characteristics, (2) existing regulatory and non

- regulatory initiatives to improve the efficiency of the equipment, and (3) trends in the equipment’s characteristics and retail ma rkets

. This information serves as resource material throughout the rulemaking.

DOE reviewed literature and interviewed manufacturers to get an overall understanding

of the electric motor s industry in the United States

. Industry publications

, trade jour nals, government agencies, and trade organizations provided the bulk of the information obtained regarding: (1) manufacturers and their market shares, (2) shipments by equipment class, (3) equipment information, and (4) industry trends

. The appropriate se ctions of preliminary TSD chapters 2 and 3 describe the analyses and resulting information

.5 DOE typically uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies manufacturers use to attain higher performance levels

. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develops a list of technologies for consideration

. Initially, these technologies encompass all of those options that might for improv e equipment efficien cy

. DOE developed its list of technolog y options for

electric motor s from its examination of technical documents and through consultation with manufacturers and industry experts.

ES.3.2 Screening Analysis

The screening analysis (chapter 4) examines whether various technologies : (1) are technologically feasible; (2) are practicable to manufacture, install, and service; (3) have an adverse impact on product utility or availability; or (4) have adverse impacts on health and safety

. DOE develops an initial list of efficiency

- enhancement options (i.e., technology options)

from those identified as “technologically feasible” in the technology assessment

. In consultation with interested parties, DOE then reviews the list to determine if these technologies are

pract icable to manufacture, install, and service; would adversely affect product utility or availability; or would have adverse impacts on health and safety

. DOE removes from the list those technology options for which no energy consumption information is avai lable and technology options whose energy consumption could not be adequately measured by the existing DOE test procedure . After DOE examines all of the technology options and pares them down in the screening analysis, it uses the remaining design options as inputs to estimate the characteristics and the cost of higher efficiency equipment in the engineering analysis

.

ES.3.3 Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis (chapter 5) establishes the relationship between the MSP and product efficiency

. This relati onship serves as the basis for cost/benefit calculations in terms of individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation . This chapter discusses the equipment

class es DOE analyzed, the representative baseline units, the incremental efficiency levels, the methodology DOE used to develop the MSP , the cost

- efficiency curves for equipment class es analyzed, and the methodology DOE used to scale those results to other equipment class es of

electric motor s that were not analyzed

.

ES.3.3.1 Equipment Class es Analyzed

Becaus e of the large number of electric motor equipment class es, DOE did not analyze each one in the engineering analysis . Instead, DOE analyzed five representative equipment

class es : three from equipment class group 1 ( NEMA Design A and B motors) and two from equipment class group 2 ( NEMA Design C motors). The e quipment class group 3 ( f ire p ump motors) analysis will be based on the data from equipment class group 1 representative units because of the similarities between fire pump electric motors and NEMA Design B motors

. When selecting these group s
, DOE used catalog data, discussions with industry experts, and th e Framework Document

. After analyzing this information

, DOE reached the tentative conclusion

that the selected motor groups were representative of the commercial and industrial electric6 motor market which made them reasonable selections for the purposes of conducting the engineering analysis

. The motors presented in Table ES.3

. 1 are th e five representative units DOE analyzed

. The left three columns provide the three characteristics of a n electric motor that define

its equipment class

– na mely, motor category, horsepower and number of poles

. The fourth column denotes the frame series of the analyzed motor.

Table ES.3

. 1 Design Characteristics of the Five Representative Units Analyzed

Motor Category Horsepower Number of Poles Frame Series

NEMA Design B 5 4 184T

NEMA Design B 30 4 286T

NEMA Design B 75 4 365T

NEMA Design C 5 4 184T

NEMA Design C 50 4 326T

DOE requests comment on its selection of representative units for equipment class group 1, Design A and B motors from 1

- 500 horsepower , and equipment class group 2, Design C

motors from 1

- 200 horsepower . DOE also requests comment on basing its analysis of equipment class group 3, f ire p ump electric m otors, on the analysis of equipment class group 1 representative units.

ES.3.3.2 Engineering Analysis Results

For each NEMA Design B representative unit, DOE purchased four electric motors at

four increasing efficiency levels a

Table ES.3

. 2 . The purchased motors included a baseline design at the

minimum efficienc y commercially available, while considering the expanded scope of coverage, a design at the EPACT 1992 level, a design at the NEMA Premium level, and a design at the maximum efficiency commercially available for that motor rating. DOE then used software

mo deling to create a f ifth and sixth motor design for each of the three NEMA Design B elec tric

motors . These additional designs had efficiencies corresponding to an incremental efficiency

level and a maximum technologically feasible (“max tech”) efficiency level . DOE assigned each of these efficiency levels a c andidate s tandard l evel (CSL) number from 0

- 5 with the baseline motor being assigned CSL 0 and the max

- tech software modeled motor being assigned CSL 5

. See for a layout of the CSLs and their efficiency representations.

Table ES.3

. 2 NEMA Design B Motor Candidate Standard Levels Motor Designation Efficiency Level

CSL 0 Minimum Commercially Available

CSL 1 EPACT 1992

CSL 2 NEMA Premium

CSL 3 Maximum Commercially Available

a For the 30 horsepower representative unit, DOE purchased three electric motors at different efficiency levels, and used software modeling to simulate motors at the remaining efficiency levels.7 CSL 4 Incremental

CSL 5 Maximum Technology

For the NEMA Design C representative unit s , DOE purchased one baseline motor and used software to model three additional designs with higher efficiencies than the efficiency of the baseline motor. DOE used this approach because NEMA Design C motors constitute a small portion of the electric motor market with lim ited product selection and DOE was unable to locate

any commercially available units with increas ed efficiency levels

. The NEMA Design C motors were assigned CSL numbers from 0

- 3 with CSL 0 representing EPACT 1992 efficiency levels

and CSL 3 representing the max

- tech efficiency level. See Table ES.3

. 3 and Table ES.3

. 4 for a layout of the CSLs and their efficiency representations.

Table ES.3

. 3 Design C 5 H orsepower Motor Candidate Standard Levels Motor Designation Efficiency Level

CSL 0 EPACT 1992

CSL 1 NEMA Premium

CSL 2 Incremental

CSL 3 Maximum Technology

Table ES.3

. 4 NEMA Design C 50 H orsepower Motor Candidate Standard Levels Motor Designation Efficiency Level

CSL 0 EPACT 1992

CSL 1 Incremental

CSL 2 NEMA Premium

CSL 3 Maximum Technology

DOE used a consistent methodology and prici ng scheme including material, labor costs and manufacturer markups to develop MSPs for the baseline and incrementally more efficient

electric motor designs . This methodology included te aring down the motors, weighing components, and estimating the material cost s based on material pricing. DOE use d th is bottoms

up derived and manufacturer marked

- up selling prices throughout this section. T he engineering analysis results are a series of MS P

- versus

- efficienc y curves that represent the five motor types analyzed from the representative equipment class es

. The five graphs shown in Figure ES.3

. 1 through Figure ES.3

. 5 p rovide the MSP

- versus

- efficiency curves and Table ES.3

. 6 through

Table ES.3

. 14 present the tabulated results.

In determining the relationship between MSP and energy efficiency for electric motor s, DOE estimated the increase in MSP associated with technological changes that increase the efficiency of the baseline models

. DOE developed cost estimates for the engineering analysis

from information received from subject matter experts with many years experience in the field, manufacturers’ suggestions, and input from other industry

- related experts , including material suppliers

.8 NEMA Design B, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Figure ES.3

. 1 presents the relationship between the MSP and full

- load efficiency for the

5 horsepower , Design B, 4

- pole enclosed polyphase motor analyzed. Using tear

- d own results for

CSLs 0

- 3 , DOE determined that the manufacturer of th o se motors used various combinations of stack length increase s, electrical material such as copper or electrical steel, and rotor cage design changes to increase the electric motor’s effic iency level. The max

- tech software modeled CSL 5

and utilize d a die

- cast copper conductor in the rotor

. Also, DOE assumed a hand

- wound labor hour amount for the two software modeled CSLs (CSL 4 and 5). Th e increased labor hour

amounts account for the large r than usual increase in the MSP s for the higher CSLs as illustrated

in Figure ES.3

. 1

.

Figure ES.3

. 1 NEMA Design B, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

Table ES.3

. 5 presents the same engineering analysis results in tabular form, including the

nom inal full

- load efficiency values and the MSPs . From CSL 0 to 3

, DOE found that the full

l oad efficiency would increase 7.7 nominal percentage points over the baseli ne, CSL 0, which represents a 49 percent reduction in motor losses . When moving from CSL 3 t o 4 and from CSL

4 to 5 , MSP increases by 41 percent and 11 percent , respectively, for consecutive loss reductions

of roughly 10 percent . Again, the large price increases when getting to CSLs 4 and 5 are a result

of the use of hand

- wound labor hour assumptions and the use of low

- loss electrical steels.9 Table ES.3

. 5 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design B 5

H orsepower Motor

CSL Nominal Full

- Load Efficiency (%) MSP ($)

0 82.5 3 24

1 87.5 326

2 89.5 35 8

3 90.2 3 70

4 91.0 523

5 91.7 5 79

Table ES.3

. 6 presents some of the design and performance specificatio ns associated with

the six 5

- horsepower NEMA Design B motors presented in Table ES.3

. 5 including stator copper weight, rotor conductor weight, and electrical steel weight.

Table ES.3

. 6 NEMA Design B 5 H orsepower , 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Characteristics

Parameter Units CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5
Efficiency % 82.5 87.5 89.5 90.2 91.0 91.7
Line Voltage V 460 460 460 460 460 460

Full Load Speed RPM 1

, 745 1,745 1,760 1,755 1,773 1,776

Full Load Torque Nm 20.3 20.4 20.3 20.4 20.1 20.1

Current A 6.9 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.0

Steel

- M56 M47 M47 M47 M36 M36

Rotor Conductor

Material - Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper

Approximate

Slot Fill % 43.5% 57.2% 70.0% 68.6% 82.4% 85.2%

Stator Wire Gauge AWG 19 19 19 20 20 20

Stator Copper Weight l bs 8.4 10.1 10.1 12.2 14.4 14.4

Rotor Conductor Weight l bs 2.63 2.87 2.6 3.42 2.7 9.1

Stack Length In 2.8 3.47 5.14 4.65 5.32 5.32
Housing Weight lbs 8 9 22 12 14 14

NEMA Design B, 30 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Figure ES.3

. 2 presents the relationship between the MSP a nd full

- load efficiency for the

30 horsepower , Design B, 4

- pole enclosed polyphase motor analyzed. Using tear

- down results for CSLs 0 through 3, DOE determined that the manufacturer of these motors used a combination of material grade, material quantities, and design changes to increase the electric motor’s efficiency

.

DOE used software modeling to develop CSL 4 . For this design

, DOE used a copper rotor and low

- loss electrical steel to achieve efficiencies higher than the most efficient purchased10 motor , CSL 3

. DOE was unable to increase the efficiency a full NEMA band greater than CSL 4

and therefore the 30 horsepower Design B representative equipment class does not have a CSL 5

.

Figure ES.3

. 2 NEMA Design B, 30 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

Table ES.3

. 7 presents the same engineering analysis results in a tabular form, including

the full

- load efficiency values and the MSPs . F rom CSL 0 t hrough 3 , DOE found that the full

l oad efficien cy would increase 4.6 nominal percentage points over the baseline, CSL 0 , which

represents a bout a 47 percent reduction in motor losses. The increase in MSP to move from CSL

0 to CSL 3 is $ 377 , or about a 46 percent increase in MSP over CSL 0 . Moving from CSL 3 to
CSL 4 provides a 7 percent reduction in motor losses for a MSP increase of $ 732 or about a 61

percent MSP increase over CSL 3

.

Table ES.3

. 7 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design B

30 H orsepower Motor

CSL Nominal Full

- Load Efficiency (%) MSP ($)

0 89.5 827

1 92.4 1,044

2 93.6 1,193

3 94.1 1,204

4 94.5 1,93611 Table ES.3

. 8 presents some of the design and performance specifi cations associated with

the f our 30 horsepower designs presented in Table ES.3

. 7

.

Table ES.3

. 8 NEMA Design B 30 H orsepower , 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Characteristics

Parameter Units CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4
Efficiency % 89.5 92.4 93.6 94.1 94.5
Line Voltage V 230 460 460 460 460

Full Load Speed RPM 1

, 755 1,765 1,76 8 1,7 70 1,784

Full Load Torque Nm 121.6 121.4 12 0

. 8 120. 6 119.6

Current A 37 37 36 36 37

Steel

- M56 M56 /M47 M 47 M 47 M 36

Rotor Conductor Material

- Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper

Approximate Slot Fill % 48.4 84.0 7 0.0 70.0 83.2

Stator Wire Gauge AWG 18 17 16 18 18
Stator Copper Weight l bs 20.2 43.5 45.2 47.7 74.5
Rotor Conductor Weight l bs 8.25 9.5 7.5 13.66 42.6

Stack Length In 7.88 5.53 6.00 6.74 7.00
Housing Weight lbs 21 130 131 147 79

NEMA Design B, 75 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Figure ES.3

. 3 presents the relationship between the MSP a nd full

- load efficiency for the

75 horsepower , Design B, 4

- pole enclosed polyphase motor analyzed.

Using tear

- down results for CSLs 0 through 3, DOE determined that the manufacturer of these electric motors increased the stack length and other material amounts to increase the electric motor’s efficiency levels from 9 3

. 0 percent to 95.8 percent. The torn

- down electric motor representing CSL 3 used i ncreased rotor aluminum and stator copper as well as an increased stack length to achieve 95.8 percent efficiency. To develop CSL 4 and 5, DOE u sed

die

- cast copper conductors in the rotor s and increased the stack length s for each CSL 4 and 5.

The use of di e

- cast copper rotors and change from machine winding to hand winding labor hours account for the larger

- than

- typical price increases for CSL 4 and 5 when compared to lower

CSLS for the 75 horsepower Design B representative units.12 Figure ES.3

. 3 NEMA Design B, 75 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

Table ES.3

. 9 presents the same engineering analysis results in a tabular form, including

the nominal full

- load efficiency values and the MSPs

. Moving from CSL 0 to CSL 3 , DOE found

that the full

- l oad efficiency would increase 2.8 nominal percentage points over the base line, CSL 0, which represents a bout a 42 percent reduction in motor losses. The increase in MSP to move

fr om CSL 0 to CSL 3 is about $ 748 or about a 41 percent increase in MSP over CSL 0. Moving

from CSL 3 to CSL 4 provides a 10 percent reduction in motor losses for a MSP increase of $ 772 or about a 30 percent MSP increase over the CSL 3 electric motor, and to increase the efficiency from CSL 4 to the max

- tech efficiency of CSL 5 there is a 10 percent reduction in

motor losses for a 11 percent increase in M SP of $ 3 59

.

Table ES.3

. 9 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design B

75 H orsepower Motor

CSL Nominal Full

- Load Efficiency (%) MSP ($)

0 93.0 1,833

1 94.1 1,994

2 95.4 2,270

3 95.8 2,581

4 96.2 3,353

5 96.5 3,71213 Table ES.3

. 10 presents some of the design and performance specifi cations associated

with the six 75

- horsepower designs presented in Table ES.3

. 9

.

Table ES.3

. 10 NEMA Design B 75 H orsepower , 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Characteristics

Parameter Units CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5
Efficiency % 93.0 94.1 95.4 95.8 96.2 96.5
Line Voltage V 460 460 460 460 460 460

Full Load Speed RPM 1

, 775 1,785 1,781 1,785 1,788 1,789

Full Load Torque Nm 299.8 299.8 302.3 300.8 299.6 299.6

Current A 88 91.8 89.4 88.6 89.8 91.9

Steel

- M56 M47 M47 M47 M 36 M 36

Rotor Conductor

Material - Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper Copper

Approximate Slot

Fill % 48.0 44.5 70.0 70.0 85.1 83.4

Stator Wire Gauge AWG 17 12 12 15 14 14

Stator Copper Weight l bs 77.8 71 82 136 127 160

Rotor Conductor Weight l bs 3 1.0 20.7 2 7

. 3 3 8

. 5 7 9 84.3

Stack Length In 8.15 10.23 10. 58 11.37 12.00 13.00
Housing Weight lbs 1 30 79 168 1 80 190 206

NEMA Design C, 5 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Figure ES.3

. 3 presents the relationship between the MSP a nd full

- load efficiency for the

5 horsepower , NEMA Design C, 4

- pole enclosed polyphase motor analyzed. DOE purchased one NEMA Design C electric moto r for a tear

- down analysis. The remaining three CSLs were based

on software model ed motors. To achieve higher efficiency levels, the software modeling expert used various combinations of higher grade electrical steel, increased slot fill, increased stack

l ength

, changed from aluminum to copper die

- cast conductors in the rotors. Figure ES.3

. 4 shows the efficiency versus MSP curve for the 5 horsepower NEMA Design C electric motor CSLs.14 Figure ES.3

. 4 NEMA Design C, 5 Horsepower, 4

- P ole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

Table ES.3

. 11 presents the same engineering analysis results in a tabular form, including

the nominal full

- load efficiency values and the MSPs

. Moving from CSL 0 to CSL 2 , DOE found

that the nominal full

- l oad efficiency would increase 2.7 percentage points over the baseline CSL 0 which represents a 2 4 percent reduction in motor losses. The increase in MSP to move f rom CSL 0 to CSL 2 is $ 1 98 , or about a 61 percent increase in MSP over CSL 0. To increase from

CSL 2 to CSL 3 would result in a 10 percent reduction in motor losses and a 7 percent increase

in MSP.

Table ES.3

. 11 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design C 5

H orsepower Motor

CSL Nominal Full

- Load Efficiency (%) MSP ($)

0 87.5 32 4

1 89.5 348

2 90.2 522

3 91.0 559

Table ES.3

. 12 presents some of the design and performance specifi cations associated

with the four Design C 5 horsepower motor s presented in Table ES.3

. 11

.15 Table ES.3

. 12 NEMA Design C 5 H orsepower , 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Characteristics

Parameter Units CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Efficiency % 87.5 89.5 90.2 91.0

Line Voltage V 460 460 460 460

Full Load Speed RPM 1,750 1,762 1,767 1,776

Full Load Torque lb

- ft 15 14.9 14.9 14.8

Current A 7.1 8.4 7.1 6.5

Steel

- M47 M36 M36 M36

Rotor Conductor Material

- Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper

Approximate Slot Fill % 67.9 79.9 83.9 82.9

Stator Wire Gauge AWG 18 18 18 18

Stator Copper Weight l bs 10 9.9 15 12.8

Rotor Conductor Weight l bs 2.2 2.0 2.4 7.8

Stack Length in 4.75 4.25 5.32 5.32

Frame Weight lbs 12 11 14 14

NEMA Design C, 50 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Figure ES.3

. 5 presents the relationship between the MSP a nd full

- load efficiency for the

5 horsepower , NEMA Design C, 4

- pole enclosed polyphase motor ana lyzed. DOE purchased only one NEMA Design C electric motor for tear

- down analysis. The remaining three CSLs were

bas ed on software modeled motors. To achieve higher efficiency levels, the software modeling expert used various combinations of higher grade electrical steel, increased slot fill, increased stack length, and copper rotors. Figure ES.3

. 5 shows the efficiency versus MSP curve for the 50 horsepower NEMA Design C electric motor CSLs.16 Figure ES.3

. 5 NEMA Design C, 50 Horsepower, 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor Engineering Analysis Curve

Tabl e ES.3

. 13 presents the same engineering analysis results in a tabular form, including

the nominal full

- load efficiency values and the MSPs

. Moving from CSL 0 to CSL 2

, DOE found

that the nominal full

- l oad efficiency would increase 1.5 nominal percentage points over the baseline, CSL 0, which represents a bout a 2 3 percent reduction in motor losses. The increase in MSP to move from CSL 0 to CSL 2 is $ 540 , or about a 37 percent increase in MSP over CSL 0. To increase from CSL 2 to CSL 3, a 10 percent reduction in motor losses, results in an 8. 8

percent increase in MSP.

Tabl e ES.3

. 13 Efficiency and Manufacturer Selling Price Data for the NEMA Design C

50 H orsepower Motor

CSL Nominal Full

- Load Efficiency (%) MSP ($)

0 93.0 1,452

1 94.1 1,664

2 94.5 1,992

3 95.0 2,168

Table ES.3

. 14 presents some of the design and performance specifi cations associated

with the four 50 horsepower electric motor designs presented in Tabl e ES.3

. 13

.17 Table ES.3

. 14 NEMA Design C 50 H orsepower , 4

- Pole, Enclosed Frame Motor

Characteristics

Parameter Units CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
Efficiency % 93.0 94.1 94.5 95.0
Line Voltage V 460 460 460 460

Full Load Speed RPM 1,770 1,775 1,775 1,782

Full Load Torque lb

- ft 148 148 148 147.3

Current A 59.4 63.9 63.7 61.3

Steel

- M47 M36 M36 M19

Rotor Conductor Material

- Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper

Approximate Slot Fill % 79.6 74.8 85.3 81.3

Stator Wire Gauge AWG 17 17 17 17
Stator Copper Weight l bs 66 78 90 85
Rotor Conductor Weight l bs 16.5 11 11 36.6
Stack Length In 8.67 9.55 9.55 9.55

Frame Weight lbs 125 138 138 138

ES.3.4 Markups Analysis

The markups analysis (chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD) develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to convert the estimates of manufacturer cost derived in the engineering analysis to installed prices for medium electric m otors. The engineering analysis (chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD) identifies eight representative units and develops the MSP for each . The eight representative units are evaluated in the LCC analysis (chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD).

DOE derived a set o f prices for each representative unit by applying markups to the MSP. Those markups represent all the costs associated with bringing a manufactured motor into service as an installed piece of electrical equipment at a customer’s site.

For medium electric motors (those built in a three

- digit frame number series ) , DOE

defined six distribution channels and estimated their respective shares of shipments . The six

channels are:

(1) from manufacturers to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and then to end

users ( 50 percent of shipments ) ; (2) from manufacturers to distributors and then to end

- users (2 4 percent of shipments ) ; (3) from manufacturers to distributors to OEMs and then to end

- users (2 3 percent of shipments ) ; (4) from manufacturers to end

- users through contractors ( less than 1 percent of shipments ); (5) from manuf acturers to distributors to contractors and then to end

- users ( less than

1 percent of shipments ); and (6) directly to end

- users ( less than 2 percent of shipments).18 Table ES.3

. 15 summarizes the markups at each stage in the distribution channel and the

overall baseline and incremental markups, as well as sales taxes, for each of the primary

channels ( see items 1 through 3 above ).

Table ES.3

. 15 Summary of Markups for the Three Primary Distribution Channel s for

Medium Electric Motor s

Marku p OEM to End

- User (50%) Distributor to End

- User (24%) Distributor to OEM to

End

- User (23 %)

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental

Distributor

- - 1. 35 1. 20 1. 35 1. 20

OEM 1.44 1.39

- - 1.44 1.39

Contractor/Installer

- - - - - - Sales Tax 1.0 712 1.0 712 1.0 712 1.0 712 1.0 712 1.0 712

Overall 1.54 1.49 1.4 5 1.2 9 2.0 8 1.7 9

Weighting the markups in all six channel s by each channel’s share of shipments yields an

average overall baseline markup of 1.6 3 and an overall increment al markup of 1. 50

. DOE used

th o se markups for each equipment class. Apply ing the markups, DOE generated end

- user motor prices for each efficiency level it considered, assuming that each level represents a new minimum efficiency standard

.

ES.3.5 Energy Use Characterization

The energy use characterization (chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD) produces energy use estimates for electric motors. Those estimates enable DOE to evaluate the energy savings from the operation of electric motors at the efficiency levels associated with amended efficiency

standards. The energy use characterization provides the basis for developing the energy savings used in the LCC and subsequent analyses.

The energy use by electric motors equals the end

- use load plus any energy losses

a ssociated with motor operation . Energy use is derived from three components: useful mechanical shaft power, motor losses, and reactive power. b Motor losses consist of I 2 R (resistance heat) losses, core losses, stray

- load losses, and friction and windage l osses. For a

motor having a given nominal efficiency, the annual energy consumption depends on the motor’s annual operating hours and loading, which are determined by the motor’s sector (industry

, agriculture, and commercial) and application (compressor, f ans, pumps, material handling and processing, fire pumps, and others)

.

DOE developed estimates of motor losses and reactive power at full load and part

- load for various nominal efficiency levels based on estimates of the specific motor designs that it

b In an alternating current power system, the reactive power is the root mean square (RMS) voltage multiplied by the RMS current, multi plied by the sine of the phase difference between the voltage and the current. Reactive power occurs when the inductance or capacitance of the load shifts the phase of the voltage relative to the phase of the current. Although reactive power does not itsel f consume energy, it can increase losses and costs for the electricity distribution system. Motors tend to create reactive power because the windings in the motor coils have high

inductance.19 de veloped in the engineering analysis. DOE then characterized the energy use of motors within horsepower ranges according to the end

- use sector and application

. Motor distribution across

sectors varie d depending on a motor’s horsepower range

. M otor distribut ion across applications varied depending on the motor’s horsepower range and equipment class group

.

Table ES.3

. 16 shows the results of the energy use analysis for the eight representative units at each considered energy efficiency level. Results are given for baseline units (CSL 0) and

the additional can didate standard levels (CSLs) being considered. Chapter 7 provides greater detail regarding the methods, data, and assumptions used for the energy use analysis.

Table ES.3

. 16 Average Annual Energy Consumptio n by Efficiency Level for Representative Units

ES.3.6 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

New and amend ed equipment standards result in changes in customer operating expenses (usually a decrease) and changes in initial customer price (usually an increase). DOE performed the LCC analysis to evaluate the net effect of new and amended standards on customers based on

the cost

- efficiency re lationship derived from the engineering analysis, as well as the energy costs derived from the energy use characterization. Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the customer (purchase price plus installation cost), operating costs (p rimarily energy expenses), expected lifetime of the equipment, and discount rate.

Because the installed cost of equipment typically increases while operating costs typically decrease in response to new or amended standards, there is a period when the net

Representative

Unit Description kilowatt

- hours per year

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

1 Design B, T

frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 10,448 9,869 9,691 9,616 9,567 9,487

2 Design B, T

frame, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 57,642 55,912 55,021 54,492 54,326

-

3 Design B, T

frame, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 204,834 202,540 198,496 197,697 197,194 196,604

4 Design C, T

frame, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 9,987 9,808 9,738 9,630

- -

5 Design C, T

frame, 50 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 89,523 88,507 88,119 87,444

- -

6 Fire pump, 5 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 19.6 19.2 19.1 19.0 18.8

-

7 Fire pump, 30 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 1,601 1,577 1,562 1,558

- -

8 Fire pump, 75 hp, 4 poles, enclosed 97,791 95,934 95,554 95,313 95,033

-20 operating

- cost benefit (in dollars) since the time of purchase of the more efficient equipment equals the incremental first cost of purchasing the higher efficiency unit. The length of time required for equipment to reach this cost

- equivalence point is kn own as the PBP.

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis using Monte Carlo simulation methods and probability distributions to model both the uncertainty and variability in the inputs. Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are:

**•** motor application and sector

**•** annual energy use,

**•** electricity prices and price trends,

**•** operating hours,

**•** motor lifetime,

**•** motor efficiency, and

**•** a discount rate.

These variables, and the interactions among them, are discussed in the following paragraphs

.

DOE characteriz ed a set of end

- use applications for electric motors that determine motor

use profiles

. In each Monte Carlo simulation, one application is identified by sampling a distribution of applications for each equipment class. The selected application determines the number of op erating hours per year as well as the motor loading (i.e. o utput power as a
percentage of rated power ) . DOE used the operating hours and the motor loading for each application to estimate motor energy use.

For electricity prices, DOE derived sector

- spec ific average electricity prices for four

c ensus regions (Northeast, Midwest, South

, and West) using data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA Form 861) . For each sector, DOE assigned electricity prices us ing a Monte Carlo approach that incorpora ted weightings based on the estimated number of motors in each region. The regional quantities were derived based on indicators specific to each sector (e.g., for industry, the value of shipments by census region from the Manufacturing Energy Consumption

S urvey). To estimate future trends in energy prices, DOE used projections from the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2011 ( AEO 2011 ).

Because of the wide range of applications and motor use characteristics considered in the LCC and PBP analysis, the range of annual energy use is quite broad. Although the annual energy use and/or energy pricing are generally known for a given application, the variability

ac ross all applications contributes to the range of LCCs and PBPs calculated for any particular

CSL

. There is also an energy use and/or energy pricing distribution between the sectors (industry, agriculture, and commercial) associated with each application

. The sector to which an application belongs determines the energy price and discount rate DOE used in each simulation performed for calculating the LCC.21 DOE estimated the mechanical lifetime of motors in hours (i.e., the total number of hours

a motor oper ates throughout its lifetime, including repairs) depending on its horsepower (hp) size. DOE then developed Weibull distributions of mechanical lifetimes. (Weibull distributions are statistical models used to predict the likelihood of failure over time.) T he lifetime in years for a sampled motor was calculated by dividing the sampled mechanical lifetime by the sampled annual operating hours of the motor. This model produces a negative correlation between annual hours of operation and motor lifetime: motors operated many hours per year are likely to be retired sooner than motors that are used for only a few hundred hours per year. DOE considered that motors of less than 75 hp are most likely to be embedded in another piece of equipment (i.e., an application). For such applications D OE developed Weibull distributions of application lifetimes expressed in years, then compared the sampled mechanical lifetime (in years) with the sampled application lifetime. DOE assumed that the motor would be retired at the young er of the

two ages.

DOE made seve ral assumptions regarding motor repair based on stakeholder inputs and

on information found in the literature . First, DOE assumed t hat NEMA Design A, B and C medium electric motors are repaired on average after 32,000 ho urs of operation c

, and that repair

costs vary depending on motor size, configuration

, and efficiency. Second, DOE assumed that

one

- third of repairs are performed competently and according to recommended practice as defined by the Electrical Apparatus Service Association d and therefore do not adversely affe ct the efficiency of the motor ( i.e., there is no degradation of efficiency after repair). Third, DOE

assumed that the remaining two

- thirds of repairs are not performed in a similar manner and result

in a slight decrease in efficiency. Finally, DOE assumed the efficiency drops by 1 percent in the

case of motors of less than 40 hp, and by 0.5 percent in the case of larger motors.

F or each representative unit, DOE developed a projection of base case (no amended standards) efficiency distribution in 2015. DOE based the projection on the percentage of models

at different levels using recent manufacturer catalogs. Applying the base case distribution of equipment efficiencies for each representative unit, DOE randomly assigned an equipment efficiency to each unit based on the market share . If a motor was assigned an equipment efficiency greater than or equal to the efficiency of the CSL under consideration, the LCC

calculation would show that the motor uni t would not be affected by that standard level.

ES.3.6.1 Results of Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Table ES .3

. 17 describe s the eight representative units that DOE analyzed. The engineering analysis examined units 1 through 5, but did not directly analyze fire pump electric

motors . Instead, the engineering outputs for representative units 1, 2, and 3 were assumed to also

be valid to cha racterize representative units 6, 7, and 8.

c 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.

d Good practice in motor repair is defined in the joint EASA AEMT study at http://www.easa.com/sites/default/files/rwstdy1203.pdf22 Table ES.3

. 17 Representative Units for Preliminary Analysis

Representative

Unit Equipment Class Group Specifications Horsepower

1 NEMA Design s A & B Design B, T

- frame, e nclosed,

4

- pole 5

2 30

3 75

4 NEMA Design C Design C, T

- frame, e nclosed,

4

- pole 5

5 50

6
Fire Pump Uses same engineering

outputs as units 1, 2, and 3 5

7 30

8 75

Table ES.3

. 18 through Table ES.3

. 25 present key findings from the LCC and PBP analysis performed for this preliminary TSD. Most of the values in the tables are average or median values, al though the tables also show the percentage of end

- users expected to experience a net cost (negative LCC savings) or net benefit (positive LCC savings) at each CSL

. The average LCC savings are calculated relative to a base case efficiency distribution. Chapter 8 of

the preliminary TSD presents distributions of LCC and PBP results for each representative unit analyzed.

For representative unit 1 ( Table ES.3

. 18 ), the highest CSL that provides positive average LCC savings is CSL 3 . DOE estimates that 67.8 percent of end

- use rs would experience a net benefit (i.e., LCC decrease) at this CSL and that the increase in average total installed cost (relative to the base case) would be $ 81 , or a 13 .9 percent increase , while operating costs decrease by $ 46 , or a 4.6 percent decrease

.

Table ES.3

. 18 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 1: NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 5 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 82.5 584 1,006 5,926

1 87.5 588 969 5,649 16 0.1 5.8 0.1

2 89.5 651 963 5,631 25 18.9 26.4 5.1

3 90.2 665 960 5,608 45 20.5 67.8 4.7

4 91.0 909 960 5,831

- 169 89.3 6.5 28.2

5 91.7 998 958 5,883

- 220 93.3 5.4 26.923 For representative unit 2 ( Table ES.3

. 19 ), the highest CSL that provides positive average LCC savings is CSL 3 . DOE estimates that 86.6 percent of end

- users would experience a net benefit (i.e., LCC decrease) at this CS L and that the increase in average total installed cost (relative to the base case) is $ 718 , or a 45.7 percent increase , while operating costs decrease by $ 234 , or a 4.3 percent decrease

.

Table ES.3

. 19 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 2: NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 30 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 89.5 1,570 5,489 44,182

1 92.4 1,986 5,358 43,376 45 0.6 4.9 3.5

2 93.6 2,277 5,295 43,035 177 5.7 32.9 5.3

3 94.1 2,288 5,255 42,666 511 4.0 86.6 0.7

4 94.5 3,468 5,249 43,735

- 558 87.1 12.9 23.8

For representative unit 3 ( Table ES.3

. 20 ), the highest CSL that provides positive average LCC savings is CSL 3 . DOE estimates that 47.5 percent of end

- users would experience a net benefit (i.e., LCC decrease) at this CSL and that th e increase in average total installed cost (relative to the base case) is $ 1, 313 , or a 3 7.9 percent increase , while operating costs decrease by $ 481 , or a 2.8 percent decrease

.

Table ES.3

. 20 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 3: NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 75 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 93.0 3,463 17,168 124,170

1 94.1 3,831 17,033 123,348 40 0.8 4.5 2.9

2 95.4 4,296 16,733 121,510 663 1.4 32.9 1.5

3 95.8 4,776 16,687 121,590 597 35.1 47.5 6.5

4 96.2 6,044 16,661 122,598

- 340 66.9 25.9 15.5

5 96.5 6,640 16,631 122,905

- 639 73.6 23.7 16.0

For representative unit 4 ( Table ES.3

. 21 ), the highest CSL that provides positive average LCC savings is CSL 1 . DOE estimates that 5 9.9 percent of end

- users would experience a net24 benefit (i.e., LCC decrease) at this CSL and that th e increase in average total installed cost (relative to the base case) is $ 44 , or a 7.5 percent increase , while operating costs decrease by $ 10 , or a 1. 0 percent decrease

.

Table ES.3

. 21 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 4: NEMA Design C, T

- Frame, 5 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 87.5 583 984 5,807

1 89.5 627 974 5,771 34 32.3 59.9 4.6

2 90.2 903 971 6,007

- 203 97.8 2.2 25.0

3 91.0 961 966 6,011

- 207 95.6 4.4 20.2

For representative unit 5 ( Table ES.3

. 22 ), the highest CSL that provides positive average LCC savings is CSL 3 . DOE estimates that 57.8 percent of end

- users would experience a net benefit (i.e., LCC decrease) at this CSL and that th e increase in average total installed cost (relative to the base case) is $ 1164 , or a 41.8 percent increase , while operating costs decrease by $ 1 50 , or a 1.8 percent decrease

.

Table ES.3

. 22 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 5: NEMA Design C, T

- Frame, 50 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 93.0 2,786 8,459 69,419

1 94.1 3,173 8,383 69,098 236 18.3 55.6 5.9

2 94.5 3,673 8,360 69,329 5 59.6 40.4 12.7

3 95.0 3,950 8,309 69,104 229 42.3 57.8 9.8

For representative unit 6 ( Table ES.3

. 23 ), all CSLs other than the baseline result in negative average LCC savings.25 Table ES.3

. 23 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Repres entative Unit 6: Fire Pump, NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 5 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 87.5 588 106 632

1 89.5 651 115 697

- 62 95.1 0.0 NA

2 90.2 665 119 706

- 70 99.9 0.1 NA

3 91.0 909 124 949

- 314 100.0 0.0 NA

4 91.7 998 128 1,038

- 403 100.0 0.0 NA

For representative unit 7 ( Table ES.3

. 24 ), all CSLs other than the baseline result in negative average LCC savings.

Table ES.3

. 24 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 7: Fire Pump, NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 30 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 92.4 1,986 347 3,869

1 93.6 2,277 363 4,131

- 213 78.8 2.5 104.9

2 94.1 2,288 371 4,124

- 207 78.7 8.1 79.2

3 94.5 3,468 380 5,295

- 1,378 100.0 0.0 433.6

For representative unit 8 ( Table ES.3

. 25 ), the highest CSL that provides positive average LCC savings is CSL 3 . DOE estimates that 27.0 percent of end

- users would experience a net benefit (i.e., LCC decrease) at this CSL and that the increase in average total installed cost (relative to the base case) is 2,213 , or a 57.8 percent increase , while operating costs decrease by $ 126 , or a 1. 6 percent decrease

.26 Table ES.3

. 25 Life

- Cycle Co st and Payback Period Results for Representative Unit 8: Fire Pump, NEMA Design B, T

- Frame, 75 H orsepower , 4

- Pole , Enclosed Motor

Candidate

Standard

Level Efficiency

% Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Payback

Period

years

Average

Installed

Price $ Average

Annual Operating

Cost $ Average

LCC $ Average Savings $ Customers with

Median Net

Cost

% Net

Benefit

%

0 94.1 3,831 8,050 110,032

1 95.4 4,296 7,937 108,445 1,274 55.4 25.3 1.1

2 95.8 4,776 7,927 108,544 1,193 56.7 26.0 1.9

3 96.2 6,044 7,924 109,522 215 73.0 27.0 4.5

4 96.5 6,640 7,920 109,826

- 89 72.0 28.0 5.3

Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD provides more details on the methods, data, and assumptions used for the LCC and PBP analyses

ES.3.7 Shipments Analysis

An important component of any estimate of future impacts from energy efficiency

standards is equipment shipments (chapter 9). DOE uses projections of shipments for the base case and each potential standards case as inputs to the calculat ion of n ational e nergy s avings (NES).

DOE used motor shipment data from multiple sources e to develop a set of shipment projections for all motors by horsepower covered by the rulemaking . The shipments represent the sum of U.S. production and imports minus exports and include motors imported as part of larger equipment

. DOE then used estimates of market distributions to redistribute the shipments across pole configurations and enclosures to provide shipment values for each electric motor equipment

clas s and sector.

DOE’s shipment s projection assumes that motor sales are driven by machinery production growth for equipment including motors. DOE assumed that growth rates for motor shipments correlate to growth rates in fixed investment in equipment and structures f including motors, as provided by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’s (BEA) g

e DOE based its shipments estimates on the following sources of data: market research report (IMS Research (February 2012), The World Market for Low Voltage Motors, 2012 Edition, Austin), stakeholder inputs, and responses to the Request for Information (RFI ) published in the Federal Register (76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011)). . This correlation was developed based on historical data on growth rates for motor shipments and fixed investment

f Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment which incorporates motors is typically included in “structures” and not in equipment.

g Bureau of Economic Analysis (March 01, 2012), Private Fixed Investment in Equipment and Software and

structure by Type

. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=12&step=127 data. Additional data on “r eal g ross d omestic p roduct ” (GDP) from AEO2011 for 201 1

– 203 5

was used to project fixed investments in the selected equipment and structures.

Table ES.3

. 26 presents DOE’ s estimate of project ed shipments of electric motor s following an AEO reference growth case

. Additional detail on the shipments analys i s , as well as alternate AEO growth cases can be found in chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD

.

Table ES.3

. 26 Annual and Cumulative Shipments Projection for Electric Motors (AEO reference case)

Annual Shipments thousands
Equipment Class Group 2015 2025 2035 204 4 Cumulative

2015

– 204 4
Designs A & B 5,072 7,254 9,958 13,005 256,846

Design C 10 15 20 26 515

Fire Pump 6 9 12 16 309

Total* 5,089 7,278 9,990 13,047 257,671

*Total may not precisely match the sum of all numbers in the column due to rounding.

Chapter 9 of the preliminary TSD provides more details on the methods, data, and assumptions used for the shipments analysis.

ES.3.8 National Impact Analysis

The national impact analysis (NIA) quantifies the following national impacts from CSLs: (1) NES, (2) monetary value of the energy savings attributable to new or amended standards, (3) increased total installed costs of the considered equipment due to new o r amended standards, and (4) NPV of energy savings (difference between value of energy savings and increased total installed costs). DOE prepared a spreadsheet model to project energy savings and national customer economic costs and savings resulting from potential new standards.

The cumulative NES and NPV are calculated by equipment class . Results are calculated by sector for each equipment class . These results are then aggregated across sectors using weighted averages. DOE used weighted average operat ing hours and loading data across motor application s in each sector, and assigned a range in lifetime data by horsepower based on usage data from the energy use characterization (chapter 7).

For each equipment class that was not directly analyzed in the engineering analysis and the LCC, DOE specified CSLs using scaled, full

- load, nominal efficiency data from the engineering analysis. Adjustment factors were derived from the engineering analysis to estimate

part

- load nominal efficiencies. Further, relation ships were developed to estimate MSP data for

all equipment class es. The relationships were derived from analyzing how listed prices in six

manufacturer s and distributors catalogs vary depending on horsepower, poles, and enclosures at a given efficiency level. A similar method, based on advertised weights in catalog listings, was used to estimate weights for all equipment class es as a necessary input to shipping costs.28 ES.3.8.1 An alysis of National Energy Savings

DOE calculated cumulative NES for motors shipped in the analysis period, 2015

- 2044 as the difference between the cumulative national energy consumption in the base case (without

new or amended energy conservation standard s) and under each CSL. In the base case, DOE estimated a distribution of equipment efficiencies for each equipment class and assumed this

distribution remained constant throughout the analysis period. In the standards case, DOE used a

roll

- up scenario to d etermine the distribution of equipment efficiencies at each CSL.

DOE estimated cumulative energy consumption and savings based on site energy, and then converted those values to primary (source) energy using factors that account for losses in

transmissio n, distribution, and generation of electricity.

DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the site energy values to primary (source) energy using factors that account for losses in transmission

and distribution and i n electricity generation. These site

- to

- source factors are derived from the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). DOE also estimated full

- fuel

- cycle (FFC) energy savings for each CSL. The full

- fuel

- cycle measure includes the energy consumed in extracting

, processing, and transporting primary fuels.

Table ES.3

. 27 summarizes results of the NES for each of the three equipment class

group s by horsepower range. NES results are given in quadrillion British thermal units (quads).29 Table ES.3

. 27 Summary of Cumulative National Energy Savings in Quads (2015

- 2044)

Motor

Size hp All 1

- 5 6

- 20 21

- 50 51

- 100 101

- 200 201

- 500

Designs A & B

CSL 1 0.972 0.270 0.284 0.161 0.108 0.078 0.071

CSL 2 4.414 0.954 1.211 0.668 0.527 0.410 0.644

CSL 3 7.527 1.509 1.980 1.179 0.937 0.831 1.090

CSL 4 10.836 2.123 2.855 1.704 1.378 1.265 1.511

CSL 5 13.005 2.701 3.201 1.704 1.789 1.680 1.929 Design C

CSL 1 0.012 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001

- CSL 2 0.018 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.002 0.002

- CSL 3 0.024 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.003

- Fire Pumps

CSL 1 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001

CSL 2 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.001

CSL 3 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002

CSL 4 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.002

ES.3.8.2 Analysis of Consumer Net Present Value

DOE calculated net monetary savings each year as the difference between total savings in operating costs and increases in total equipment costs in the base case and each CSL. DOE calculated savings over the life of the equipment purchased during the analys is period. The NPV is the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of

increased total installed costs. DOE used discount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent to discount future costs and savings to the present.

Table ES.3

. 28 summarizes NPV results for each of the three equipment class group s by horsepower range.30 Table ES.3

. 28 Net Present Value of Customer Impact s (billion 2011 $)

Discount

Rate % All hp 1

- 5 hp 6

- 21 hp 21

- 50 hp 51

- 100 hp 101

- 200 hp 201

- 500 hp Designs A & B

CSL 1 3 5.53 1.67 1.78 0.94 0.54 0.35 0.25

7 2.32 0.73 0.76 0.38 0.22 0.13 0.09

CSL 2 3 18.42 3.57 5.52 2.98 2.27 1.68 2.41

7 7.07 1.39 2.15 1.13 0.90 0.63 0.87

CSL 3 3 30.19 5.65 8.50 4.91 3.71 3.25 4.16

7 11.42 2.24 3.25 1.80 1.43 1.20 1.50

CSL 4 3

- 6.63

- 6.29

- 4.67

- 1.32 0.57 1.73 3.34

7

- 10.37

- 4.47

- 4.37

- 1.90

- 0.50 0.10 0.77

CSL 5 3

- 8.63

- 8.81

- 5.92

- 1.32 0.64 2.38 4.40

7

- 12.71

- 6.09

- 5.26

- 1.90

- 0.70 0.19 1.05 Design C

CSL 1 3 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

- 7 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

-

CSL 2 3 0.01

- 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

- 7

- 0.01

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

-

CSL 3 3 0.02

- 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

- 7

- 0.01

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

- Fire Pumps

CSL 1 3

- 0.02

- 0.01

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CSL 2 3

- 0.03

- 0.02

- 0.01

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

7

- 0.01

- 0.01

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CSL 3 3

- 0.10

- 0.04

- 0.04

- 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

7

- 0.05

- 0.02

- 0.02

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

CSL 4 3

- 0.11

- 0.05

- 0.05

- 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

7

- 0.06

- 0.02

- 0.02

- 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table ES.3

. 29 summarizes both NES and NPV results for each of the three equipment class group s

.31 Table ES.3

. 29 Cumulative National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Results Equipment Group and Analysis Discount

Rate % Candidate Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5 Designs A & B

Cumulative Source Savings 2015

– 2044 quads 0.97 4.41 7.53 10.84 13.00

Net Present Value billion 2011$ 3 5.53 18.42 30.19

- 6.63

- 8.63

7 2.32 7.07 11.42

- 10.37

- 12.71

Design C

Cumulative Source Savings 2015

– 2044 quads 0.01 0.02 0.02

- -

Net Present Value billion 2011$ 3 0.05 0.01 0.02

- - 7 0.02

- 0.01

- 0.01

- - Fire Pumps

Cumulative Source Savings 2015

– 2044 quads 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

-

Net Present Value billion 2011$ 3

- 0.02

- 0.03

- 0.10

- 0.11

-

7

- 0.01

- 0.01

- 0.05

- 0.06

-

Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD provides more details on the methods, data, and assumptions used for the NIA analyses.

ES.3.9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The preliminary MIA focuses on manufacturers of electric motor s

. Potential impacts include financial effects, both quantitative and qualitative, that might result from new energy conservation standards and consequently lead to changes in the manufacturing practices for

electric motor s

. DOE identified these potential im pacts through interviews with manufacturers and interested parties , as well as through the gathering of publicly available data on products, methods, and practices used in the electric motor s industry

.

Next, DOE determined how energy efficiency improv ements affect cost, production, and various other manufacturing metrics

.

Finally, DOE interviewed manufacturers for feedback

. DOE developed a questionnaire and distributed it for use during the interviews

. Highlights of the questionnaire and topics o f focus include production and product mix, compliance costs, exports, foreign competition and outsourcing, market shares and industry consolidation, and cumulative burden.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the preliminary MIA is the opportunity to identify key manufacturer issues early in the development of new standards

. During the series of preliminary interviews with manufacturers, DOE assessed concerns about the potential impact of a regulatory standard for electric motor s

. In general, manufac turers identified three major issues32 of concern: (1) capital expenditure to retool in response to the standards, (2) maintaining product availability and consumer

- oriented features, and (3) enforcement of the new standards.

ES.3.10 Other Analys e s

The remaining ch apters of the preliminary TSD address the analyses to be performed for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR).

**•** The customer subgroup analysis evaluates the effects of potential new or amended energy conservation standards on various subgroups (chapter 11).

**•** The employment impact analysis examines the effects of potential new or amended energy conservation standards on national employment (chapter 13).

**•** The utility impact analysis examines impacts of potential new or amended energy

conservation standards on the generation capacity of electric utilities (chapter 14).

**•** The emissions analysis examines the effects of potential new or amended energy conservation standards on various airborne emissions (chapter 15)

**•** The monetization of emission reduction benefits examines the monetary value of benefits resulting from reduced emissions associated with potential new or amended

standards (chapter 16).

**•** The regulatory impact analysis examines the national impacts of nonregulatory alternatives to mandatory energy conserv ation standards (chapter 17).

ES.4 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBL IC COMMENT

DOE is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of the preliminary analyses described in this TSD. DOE especially invites comments or data to improve DOE’s analyses, including information that will respond to the following questions and concerns that were raised during DOE’s preliminary interviews with manufacturers and in the preparation of this preliminary TSD.

ES.4.1 Scope of Coverage of Electric M otor s

DOE invites comments on the scope of motors covered as part of this analysis. Chapter 2 of this TSD presents a list of general purpose motors without energy conservation standards prescribed under EISA 2007 or DOE regulations. These motors generally bear no electromechanical differences from those general purpose motors that are currently regulated. Because of the close similarity between these two sets of motors, DOE tentatively concludes that these currently unregulated motors can achieve the same stand ards as equipment class group 1 or equipment class group 2 if manufacturers use similar tooling. Refer to chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD for more information on the motors DOE is considering.33 ES.4.2 Screening Analysis

DOE invites comments on the two technolo gy options that were screened out of the analysis: plastic bonded iron powder and amorphous core steels for electric motors

. Please refer

to section 2.4.1 of chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD

.

ES.4.3 Engineering Analysis Methodology

DOE invites comments on the m ethodology followed for the preliminary TSD , namely use of engineering software to design mor e efficient versions of the five representative units analyzed

. DOE is also interested in comments on the estimated manufacturer markups and labor

rates that enab le the conversion of input costs to selling prices

. Please refer to chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD for more detailed information on material prices and markups used.

ES.4.4 Engineering Analysis Results

DOE invites comments on the findings of the engineering a nalysis

. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the derived MSP f or its respective motor rating.

ES.4.5 Motor Distribution Across Sectors

DOE seeks comment on any additional sources of data that could be used to establish the

distribution of motors across sectors by horsepower range

.

ES.4.6 Motor Distribution A cross Applications

DOE seeks comment on any additional sources of data that could be used to establish the

sector

- specific distribution of motors across applications . In its preliminary analysis, DOE

assum ed that the share of motors in each application is similar across all sectors and equal to the distribution of motors across applications in the industry sector.

ES.4.7 Data on Operating Hour s and Loading

DOE seeks comment on any additional sources of field data on operating hours and loading for motors

, that could be used to improve field use characterization in the commercial and agricultural sector s

.

ES.4.8 Product Price Determination

DOE derived the product prices cited in this TSD by applying markups to the M SP it determined in the engineering analysis. DOE defined six distribution channels and estimated

each one’s share of shipments . DOE calculated an average overall baseline markup and an

overall increment al markup by w eighting the markups in all six channel s by each channel’s share of shipments. DOE requests stakeholder input regarding any viable alternative approach or source of information that could be used to develop product prices.34 ES.4.9 Repair Costs

DOE welcomes comment on the current method used to determ ine motor repair costs

.

ES.4.10 Frequency of Repair

DOE seeks comment on any additional sources for determining the frequency of motor repair depending on equipment class , sector, and application.

ES.4.11 Maintenance Costs

DOE seeks comment on any additional sources of data on motor maintenance costs. Specifically, DOE invites comment on how amended efficiency requirements may affect

maintenance costs.

ES.4.12 Installation Costs

For the engineering analysis performed for the NOPR, DOE will consider technology options that cou ld affect a motor’s mechanical configuration. DOE invites comment on how changes in motor mechanical configurations that may accompany more efficient motors may affect installation costs.

ES.4.13 Motor Lifetimes

DOE seeks comment on any additional sources of dat a on motor lifetime tha t could be

used to validate DOE ’s estimates of motor mechanical lifetime and its method of estimating

lifetimes.

ES.4.14 Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

For the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed CSLs relative to a base case. This analy sis requires estimating the distribution of product efficiencies in the base case (i.e., what customers would purchase in 2015 in the absence of new standards). For the preliminary TSD , the distribution of product efficiencies that DOE estimated in the base case was based on nominal efficiency data collected from six major manufacturer catalogs. DOE seeks comment on the estimated base case distribution of product efficiencies and on any additional sources of data

.

ES.4.15 Efficiency Trends

DOE seeks further co mment on its decision to use constant efficiencies for the analysis period. Specifically, DOE would like comments on additional sources of data on trends in efficiency improvement.

ES.4.16 Estimated Shipments

DOE seeks comment on any additional sources of data o n motor shipments tha t could be used to validate its shipments model and estimates.35 ES.4.17 Purchase Price Elasticity

If the installed cost of electric motors increases, end

- users could decide to repair or rewind motors instead of purchasing new ones, thereby re ducing purchase s of new motor s

. DOE , however, has found no data that would enable it to estimate the elasticity of electric motor shipments with respect to change s in purchase price. DOE seeks comment on any source s of data that could be used to quantitat ively estimate motor price elasticity. DOE also seeks comments on any additional sources of data on the share of motor shipments which are for new installation, and the share of shipments which are for replacement.

ES.4.18 Scaling Methodology for M anufacturer Sell ing Price

DOE seeks comment on its scaled values for MSPs. In particular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology for scaling MSP data from the representative equipment class es to the remaining equipment class es.

ES.4.19 Scaling Methodology f or Motor Weights

DOE seeks comment on the scaled values for motor weight s

. In particular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology for scaling weight data from the representative equipment class es to the remaining equipment class es.

ES.4.20 Trial Standard Levels

For the NOPR, DOE will develop trial standard levels (TSLs) based on the CSLs selected for electric motors. DOE is considering developing TSL s by equipment class group (i.e.

, all equipment class es in the same equipment class group would be at the same C SL level within this

TSL ). Further, DOE is considering several criteria in developing the TSLs, including, but not limited to, minimum LCC, maximum NPV, and "max tech" efficiency. The TSLs may include combinations of CSLs. From the TSLs it develops, DOE will select one as its proposed standard

for each equipment class group in the NOPR. DOE invites comment on the criteria it should use as the basis for selecting TSLs

.