1 | Building Technologies Program 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Preliminary Analysis Public Meeting on Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors

James RabaDepartment of EnerEnergy Efficiency & ElecMotors-2010-ST

August 21, 2012
2 | Building Technologies Program 

• Introductions• Role of the Facilitator• Ground Rules (norms)

– Listen as an ally– Use short, succinct statements/keep to the point– Hold sidebar conversations outside the room– Focus on issues, not personalities– One person speak at a time (raise hand to be recognized

name for the record)

– Set cell phones to silent/vibrate

• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening Remarks

Welcome and Introduction
3 | Building Technologies Program 

Morning Agenda

9:00 – 9:30 am Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review9:30 – 10:00 am Purpose of Public Meeting, Rulemaking Overv

Opening Statements

10:00 – 10:45 am Market and Technology Assessment and Scree10:45 – 11:00 am Break11:00 – 11:45 am Engineering Analysis11:45 – 12:30 pm Markups, Energy Use Characterization, and Li

and Payback Period Analysis
4 | Building Technologies Program 

Afternoon Agenda

1:30 – 2:15 pm Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis (2:15 – 2:45 pm National Impacts Analysis2:45 – 3:00 pm Break3:00 – 3:30 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis3:30 – 3:45 pm Next Steps 3:45 – 4:00 pm Closing Remarks
5 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups; Energy Use CharacterizationNational Impact Analysis

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview

423 Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65

Test Procedure

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses
6 | Building Technologies Program 

• Present the procedural and analytical approaches to evalu

energy conservation standards for electric motors.

• Provide a forum for public discussion of rulemaking issues• Encourage interested parties to submit data, information, 

comments.

• Inform interested parties and facilitate the rulemaking proc

Purpose of the Preliminary Analysis Public Meeting
7 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue Box The Department welcomes comments, datand information regarding electric motors energy conservation standards. Throughout this presentationspecific issues will be raised for discussion on slides sas this, with identifying numbers corresponding to issues for comment from section three in the execsummary of the preliminary TSD. Nonetheless, comments concerning any part of the document or presentation are welcome.
8 | Building Technologies Program 

• In all correspondence, please refer to the Electric Motors rule

– Electric Motors Rulemaking,– Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027, and– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904–AC28 

• Email: ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.gov

• Comment period closes: September 7, 2012

Feedback Is Requested

Postal: Hand Delivery/Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0121

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Prog950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Tel: 202-586-2945
9 | Building Technologies Program 

• The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 

1975 (Public Law 94-163)

– Established the “Energy Conservation Program 

for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.”

– Subsequent amendments to EPCA gave DOE the 

authority to regulate the energy efficiency of several types of equipment, including electric motors.

• Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 (Public Law 

102-486)

– Prescribed energy efficiency standards for certain 

commercial & industrial motors.

Regulatory History
10 | Building Technologies Program 

• Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 

2007 (Public Law 110-140)

– Updated the energy efficiency standards for 

electric motors established in EPACT 1992.

– Established energy efficiency standards for a 

larger scope of electric motors, not previously covered.

– Compliance date for new standards was 

December 19, 2010.

• Current Rulemaking

– EPCA requires DOE to determine by rule whether 

to amend energy conservation standards for electric motors.

– Any standards that DOE establishes would have a 

compliance date no sooner than December 19, 2015.

Regulatory History (Continued)
11 | Building Technologies Program 

• EPCA specifies that any standard DOE prescribes fo

motors, must meet the following factors:

– Technologically feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)– Economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)– Establishment of the standard will result in significant 

conservation of energy. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)

EPCA Factors
12 | Building Technologies Program 

EPCA Factors (Continued)

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) directs DOE to consider sevwhen determining whether a standard is economically 

EPCA Factors DOE Analys

1. Economic impact on consumers and 

manufacturers

Life-Cycle Cost AnalysisManufacturer Impact Ana

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared 

to increased cost for the product

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

3. Total projected energy savings National Impact Analysis 4. Impact on utility or performance Engineering Analysis

Screening Analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of competition Manufacturer Impact Ana6. Need for national energy conservation National Impact Analysis7. Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant

Environmental AssessmeUtility Impact AnalysisEmployment Impact Ana
13 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule

Market & Technology AssessmentScreening Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Effective 

Date
14 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer 

Subgroup 

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
15 | Building Technologies Program 

Analyses for Final Rule

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule

Revise NOPR 

Analyses

Preliminary 

Analysis
16 | Building Technologies Program 

Electric MotorsRulemaking Schedule

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Milestone 

Federal Register Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Document JulIssue NOPR 2Issue Final Rule 2Compliance Date 2
17 | Building Technologies Program 

Markup Analysis; Energy Use & End-Use LoaNational Impact Analysis

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview

423 Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65

Test Procedure

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses
18 | Building Technologies Program 

• On January 5, 2011, DOE published a Supplemental Notice of 

Rulemaking (SNOPR) test procedure. (76 FR 648)

– Proposed updates to industry testing standards for electric motors– Proposed clarifications to scope of coverage for electric motors.– Proposed revisions to definitions of terms related to electric motors– Proposed revisions to guidance in Appendix A to Subpart B of 10 C

• On May 4, 2012, DOE published a test procedure Final Rule fo

motors in which it finalized the issues proposed in the SNOPR. 26608)

– Adopted updates to industry testing standards.– Adopted clarifications to scope of coverage for electric motors.– Adopted definitions of terms related to electric motors, including a 

the term ‘electric motor.’

– DOE elected to remove Appendix A from the CFR and will post upd

on DOE’s electric motors website instead.

Test Procedure Regulatory History
19 | Building Technologies Program 

Electric Motors

General Purpose 

Electric Motors 

(Subtype I) 

General Purpose 

Electric Motors 

(Subtype II) 

NEMA Design B 

Electric Motors 

(>200 HP – 500 HP)

Fire Pump Electric 

Motors

Added d

clarifie

Added d

clarifie

ClarifieClarifie

TP Final R

Scope of Coverage for Electric Motors under EISA 2007
20 | Building Technologies Program 

Current Test Procedure

• The test procedure has been updated to include more curre

of the referenced standards.

Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance NEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.58.1, “Determination of Efficiency and Losses,” and either:

• CSA Standard C390–10, or• IEEE Standard 112–2004 Test Method B, Input-Outp

Loss Segregation.
21 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups; Energy Use CharacterizationNational Impact Analysis

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview

423 Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65

Test Procedure

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses
22 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule

Market & Technology AssessmentScreening Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Effective 

Date
23 | Building Technologies Program 

• Market and Technology Assessment

– Characterize the electric motor market and industry.

• Define the scope of coverage for energy conservation stan

– Identify the technology options to improve electric motor – Establish equipment classes.

• Screening Analysis

– Screen out technology options that DOE will not conside

engineering analysis for electric motors based on severa

Purpose
24 | Building Technologies Program 

Relationship of Market and Technology Assessment to other Analyses

Market and Technology 

Assessment Equipment Cl

Technology options to improve efficiency

Screening Analysis

Design options to improve efficiency

Engineering Analysis
25 | Building Technologies Program 

• Current energy conservation standards exist for the following 

electric motors:

– General-purpose electric motors (subtype I)– General-purpose electric motors (subtype II)– Fire pump electric motors

• Each of the above electric motor types has the following cha

– Is a single-speed, induction motor,– Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor,– Operates on polyphase alternating current (AC) 60-hertz sin

power,

– Is rated 600 volts or less,– Has 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,– Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty typ– Is built in a three-digit NEMA frame size and is not greater t

horsepower, and

– Is a NEMA Design A, B, or C electric motor (or an IEC equiv

Current Electric Motors Scope of Coverage
26 | Building Technologies Program 

• DOE is contemplating applying energy conservation standar

motor types that share similarities with those already covere

• DOE is considering covering the following electric motor type

Expanded Electric MotorsScope of Coverage

Electric Motor Type

1. Electric motors with customer defined 

endshields or special flanges 7. Immersible

2. Electric motors with single or double 

shafts of non-standard dimensions or 

additions

8. Integral brak

3. Electric motors with sleeve bearings 9. Partial or 3/

4. Electric motors with non-standard base 

or mounting feet 10.Totally enclosed, non

5. Electric motors with thrust bearings 11. Vertical hollow

6. Encapsulated electric motors -
27 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 1: DOE is open to comment regarding the list omotor types it is considering to include in the expandescope. Should any additional motor types be included this list? DOE also seeks comment on the definitions proposed in the supplementary handout. 
28 | Building Technologies Program 

• Motor types DOE is considering to not cover with exp

energy conservation standards for this rulemaking:

Exemptions from Scope Expansion

Electric Motor Type

1. Totally enclosed air-over (TEAO) 6. Liquid coo

2. Component sets 7. Single pha

3. Inverter-only duty 8. Direct curre

4. Multispeed 9. Intermittent 

5. Submersible -
29 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 2: DOE seeks comment concerning the list of motor types it is not planning to include in the expandescope of coverage, including definitions for some of themotor types in the supplementary handout. Should any additional motor types be added to this list of not-covermotors? DOE is also interested in comments regarding test procedures capable of testing these motor types.
30 | Building Technologies Program 

• DOE is currently working on a test procedure rulemaking in 

this electric motor standards rulemaking.

• The new test procedure will look to:

– Propose any necessary definitions to help clarify DOE’s pot

expansion of energy conservation standards for electric mo

– Propose any necessary modifications to the current DOE te

(not the IEEE or CSA test methodologies) that would facilitaof any electric motors that may have special requirements, electric motors that require special setup steps.

Test Procedure Modifications
31 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the additional teprocedure guidance language discussed in the supplementary handout. Issue 4: DOE is also open to comment regarding alternative approaches to testing these motors, includother test methodologies or testing standards. 
32 | Building Technologies Program 

• Generally, DOE divides covered equipment into classe

– The type of energy used– Capacity of the equipment, or – Other performance-related features that justify different s

levels, such as features affecting consumer utility (42 U.S

Electric MotorsEquipment Classes and Groups
33 | Building Technologies Program 

• DOE created 3 equipment class groups by dividing the 

of electric motors based on the following motor designs

– NEMA Design A or B,– NEMA Design C, and– Fire pump electric motors

• Within these equipment class groups DOE further divid

equipment into classes based on the combination of:

– Horsepower rating,– Pole configuration, and– Enclosure type

Electric Motors Equipment Classes and Groups
34 | Building Technologies Program 

Electric MotorsEquipment Classes and Groups

ECG Motor Design Horsepower Rating Pole Configuration Frame Enclosure E

I NEMA Design 

A or B

1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open or Enclosed 

II NEMA Design C 1-200 4, 6, 8 Open or Enclosed 

III Fire Pump 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open or Enclosed 

• There are 514 discrete equipment classes (or unique motor c

across the three equipment class groups (ECG).
35 | Building Technologies Program 

2011 Electric Motors Shipments

ECG Motor Design Horsepower Rating Pole Configuration Frame Enclosure 

I NEMA Design A 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open or Enclosed I NEMA Design B 1-500 2,4, 6, 8 Open or Enclosed 

II NEMA Design C 1-200 4, 6, 8 Open or Enclosed 

III Fire Pump 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8 Open or Enclosed 

Total 

• 2011 electric motor shipments, including motors covered by t

expansion of standards.
36 | Building Technologies Program 

Technology Assessment

Type of Motor Losses Technology Option

Stator I2R Losses

Increase copper wire diameter to slot fill, reduce end turn length, ostator slot size

Rotor I2R Losses

Replace rotor aluminum with coprotor slot size, manipulate rotor sconfiguration

Core Losses

Select lamination with less watts amorphous steels, plastic bonded add stack height (i.e., add electri

Friction and Windage Losses Optimize bearing or lubrication se

improve cooling fan design

Stray Load Losses

Optimize selection of rotor/stator improve rotor surface machining, gap
37 | Building Technologies Program 

Screening Analysis

Impacts on health or safety

Adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability 

consumers

Practicability to manufacture, install, and service

Technological feasibility

Purpose

• Screen out technology options that DOE will not consider in 

engineering analysis for electric motors.

Approach

• DOE will evaluate each technology option based on the follo
38 | Building Technologies Program 

Technology Options Screened Out of the Analysis

Technology Option Screening Criteria

Amorphous Metals Technological feasibil

Plastic Bonded Iron Powder

(PBIP) Technological feasibil
39 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 6: DOE invites comment on the technology optiotentatively eliminated during the screening analysis. DOalso welcomes comment on any proprietary concerns relevant to the design options considered in the analysisIssue 5: DOE knows of no current commercial efforts oprototype designs that employ PBIP or amorphous steeelectric motors. Are there any such efforts underway or prototypes under development? What implications, if anshould DOE consider if these types of materials are uselectric motor designs?
40 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule

Market & Technology AssessmentScreening Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Effective 

Date
41 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis

Downstream An

• Life-Cycle Cost a

Payback Period 

• National Impact • Manufacturer Im

Analysis

Manufacturer Selling Price –

Efficiency Relationship

Manufacturer 

Selling Price

Efficiency Level

• Purpose

‒ To evaluate design options that improve efficiency.‒ To characterize manufacturer selling price (MSP) versus 

for higher-efficiency electric motors.
42 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Methodology

 Divide covered equipment into classes and ide

representative units.

 For each representative unit, conduct tests and 

motors across the spectrum of efficiency perfor

 Use software modeling to create designs with e

above the highest efficiencies of the purchased 

 Develop candidate standard levels (CSLs) that 

of efficiency from the baseline to the maximum feasible level.

 Identify materials prices, markups, labor require

other costs for each design torn down and mod

 Scale results to other equipment classes not an

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
43 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Choose Representative Units

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE selected representative units for each eq

group.

• Analysis for all covered motors was based on 

representative units. Conduct Test and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed

ECG Rep. Unit Motor Design Rep. Unit Frame Enclosure Rep. Unit Horsepower 

I

(NEMA Design 

A & B Motors)

NEMA Design B Enclosed

5

30 75

II 

(NEMA Design 

C Motors)

NEMA Design C Enclosed

5

50

III 

(Fire Pump 

Motors)

NEMA Design B Enclosed

5

30 75
44 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Choose Representative Units

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed

5 HP

30 HP

75 HP

80.082.084.086.088.090.092.094.096.098.0

100.0

AVerage Efficiency Available (%)

1 to 10 HP 15 to 50 HP 60 to 
45 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis: Choose Representative Units

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
46 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Issue 7: DOE welcomes comment on the repunits that it considered in its analysis. DOE is to comment on all aspects of the representativselected.

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
47 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis: Test and Teardown Analysis

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE purchased and tested four motors at incre

efficiency levels for each representative unit in class group I.

* EPACT 1992 energy efficiency levels are equivalent to those in NEMA MG1-20** EISA 2007 energy efficiency levels are equivalent to those in NEMA MG1-2009 

Horsepower 

Rating

Nameplate Nominal FullLoad Efficiency Energy E

5 82.5% Lowes

5 87.5% EP5 89.5% EIS

5 90.2% Bes

30 89.5% Lowes30 92.4% EP30 93.6% EIS

30 94.1% Bes

75 93.0% Lowes75 94.1% EP75 95.4% EIS

75 95.8% Bes

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
48 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis: Test and Teardown Analysis

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE conducted teardowns on the tested moto

a bill of materials, including components and w

• A sample bill of materials for a NEMA Design B

horsepower, enclosed frame motor:

* These components were not priced according to weight.

Component Weight 

Stator Steel (M47) 22.1

Rotor Steel (M47) 12.4

Stator Copper Wire 10.1

Rotor Aluminum 2.9

Shaft 4.8

Frame Steel and Mounting Base 8.6

Bearings* -

Aggregate Frame Materials* -

Aggregate Hardware* -

Aggregate Insulation* -

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
49 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Issue 8: DOE requests comment on the approto develop the materials cost input. Does hardwmaterial, frame material, or insulation impact thefficiency of a motor? 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
50 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Modeling High Efficiency Designs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE had software modeling conducted. • The modeling used different design options to c

designs with incrementally improved efficiency the best-in-market teardowns.

Design Option Changes Considere

Stator Changes

Increase stack length of statorIncrease copper percentage fill of staChange number of windings around 

Rotor Changes Increase stack length of rotor Change geometry of rotor teethMaterial Changes Use copper as the primary conducto

Improve grade of electrical steel

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
51 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Issue 9: DOE seeks comment on the design ocombinations selected for increasing the efficieof representative units. DOE would like to requcomment on any additional design option combthat would increase energy conservation levels

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
52 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Modeling High Efficiency Designs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Example of Design Option Combinations A

NEMA Design B, 4-pole, 75-HP, Enclosed 

Parameter Units CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 

Efficiency % 93.0 94.1 95.4 95.8 Line Voltage V 460 460 460 460 Full Load Speed RPM 1,775 1,785 1,781 1,785 Full Load Torque Nm 299.8 299.8 302.3 300.8 Steel - M56 M47 M47 M47 

Rotor Conductor Material

- Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum 

Approximate Slot Fill % 48.0 44.5 70.0 70.0 

Stator Wire Gauge AWG 17 12 12 15 

Stator Copper Weight lbs 77.8 71 82 136 Rotor Conductor Weight lbs 31.0 20.7 27.3 38.5 Stack Length In 8.15 10.23 10.58 11.37 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs
53 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Develop CSLs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE identified CSLs that span the range of el

efficiencies from the baseline to the maximum technologically feasible efficiency.

• Factors DOE considered in setting CSLs:

Benchmark efficiency levels (e.g. NEMA Pr

NEMA standard nominal efficiencies (e.g. Tab

Commercially available and software mo

efficiencies

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
54 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Develop CSLs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

NEMA Design B 5-Horsepower Rep. Un

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

Lowest 

Efficiency 

(82.5%)

Table 12-11 

(87.5%)

Table 12-12 

(89.5%)

Table 12-12

+1 band 

(90.2%)

Table 12-

+2 band

(91.0%

NEMA Design B 30-Horsepower Rep. U

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

Lowest 

Efficiency 

(89.5%)

Table 12-11 

(92.4%)

Table 12-12 

(93.6%)

Table 12-12 

+1 band 

(94.1%)

Table 12-

+2 band

(94.5%

NEMA Design B 75-Horsepower Rep. U

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

Lowest 

Efficiency 

(93.0%)

Table 12-11 

(94.1%)

Table 12-12 

(95.4%)

Table 12-12

+1 band 

(95.8%)

Table 12-

+2 band

(96.2%

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
55 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on the tentativCandidate Standard Levels, or CSLs, selected representative units. 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
56 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Develop Material Cost Inputs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE calculated manufacturer production cos

disassembling electric motors from multiple mand creating bills of materials (BOMs).

• BOMs describe the product components in d

including labor hour estimates based on subjexpert feedback and a stator winding analysidetermine whether it was hand or machine w

• DOE determined materials prices and labor r

through conversations with manufacturers anexperts.

• DOE determined markups and labor rates fro

data, SEC filings, and manufacturer interview

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
57 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Develop Material Cost Inputs

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE then applied manufacturer markups to t

obtain MSPs.

Markup / Cost 

Input

Markup 

Percent Notes

Scrap and handling 2.5 % Standard scrap and handling

materials

Factory overhead

17.5 % Aluminum die-cast rotors; ap

only

18.0 % Copper die-cast rotors ; appli

Fully-burdened hourly labor rate $33.46 Aggregate cost of domestic a

applied to total labor hours

Non-production

37.0 %

Accounts for SG&A, R&D, waprovisions, and profit factor; aand materials (5 horsepower 

45.0 %

Accounts for SG&A, R&D, waprovisions, and profit factor; aand materials (30 and 75 hor

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
58 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Issue 11: Due to copper’s large price fluctuations, D5-year average from 2007-2011 when pricing coppeprices for all other materials. DOE requests commetentative decision to use a 5-year average price for cthe current (2011) materials pricing for all other mateIssue 12: DOE welcomes comment on its use of a hproduction markup for its 30 and 75 horsepower repunits.Issue 13: DOE welcomes comment on its tentative duse an aggregate domestic and foreign fully-burdenerate. The balance of each rate is based on estimated percentages of foreign and domestic manufacturing U.S. manufacturers. 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
59 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyzed

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Equipment Class Group I• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of th

Design B, 4-pole, 5, 30, and 75 horsepower, enclomotors. 

Equipment Class Group II• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of th

Design C, 4-pole, 5, and 50 horsepower, enclosed 

Equipment Class Group III• Fire pump electric motors have low shipments and • Efficiency levels for these motors are derived from 

the NEMA Design B, 4-pole, 5, 30, and 75 horsepoframe motors (equipment class group I).

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
60 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyzed

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• DOE considered two scaling methods:

1. Regression equations developed from the e

values in NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-11 and 

2. NEMA band increases based on NEMA MG

“Energy Efficient” and “Premium Efficient” taas commercially available efficiencies and smodeled efficiencies.

• In each scenario, efficiency levels were based 

nominal efficiency values taken from NEMA M12-10.

• Ultimately, DOE decided to use the second sc

of incremental improvements of motor losses.

– Based on NEMA “Energy Efficient” (NEMA M

Tables 12-11 & 20-A) and “Premium Efficient MG1-2011 Tables 12-11 & 20-A) values.

– Incremental improvements of one NEMA ban

CSLs.

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
61 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyzed

Choose 

Representative 

Units

• For ECG I (NEMA Design A&B):

– CSL 0: Lowest-in-scope efficiencies for all equipm– CSL 1: NEMA MG1-2011 Tables 12-11 and 20-A f

equipment classes

– CSL 2: NEMA MG1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B 

equipment classes

– CSL 3: One NEMA band above CSL 2 for all equi– CSL 4: One NEMA band above CSL 3 for all equi– CSL 5*: One NEMA band above CSL 4 for all equ

• For ECG II (NEMA Design C):

– CSL 0: NEMA MG1-2011 Table 12-11 for all equip– CSL 1: Two NEMA bands above CSL 0 for all equ

classes 

– CSL 2: One NEMA band above CSL 1 for all equi– CSL 3: One NEMA band above CSL 2 for all equi

*For equipment classes based on 30-horsepower represeCSL 5 is equal to CSL 4.

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
62 | Building Technologies Program 

Engineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not Analyzed

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
63 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Choose 

Representative 

Units

Issue 14: DOE welcomes comment on the scamethodology it has elected to use to generate for the equipment classes not analyzed. 

Conduct Test 

and Teardown 

Analyses

Model High 

Efficiency 

Designs

Develop CSLs

Develop 

Manufacturer 

Selling Prices

Scale to 

Equipment 

Classes Not 

Analyzed
64 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact Analysis

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview

423 Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65

Test Procedure

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses
65 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis Energy Use 

Characterization

Market & Technology Assessment
66 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups Analysis

Purpose

• Determine consumer motor prices based on manufacturer 

for baseline and higher efficiency equipment

• Characterize motor distribution channels

Method

• Identify distribution channels• Estimate the consumer prices by applying markups to man

selling price
67 | Building Technologies Program 

• Primary Distribution ChannelsOther distribution channels exist (e.g. from manufacturer to Oend-users through distributors) but are estimated to account foshare of the motor sales (less than one percent).

Markups Analysis

50% 24%

23%

<1%

Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer 

Contractor OEM Distributor Distributor 

OEM 

End user End user End user End user End user 

<2%
68 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups Analysis

• Sources:

– Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) markups: U.S. Cen

Manufacturing Industry Series data 

– Distributor markups: U.S. Census Bureau, Business Expend– Contractor markups: RS Mean Electrical Cost Data – Sales tax rates: 2011 Sales Tax Clearinghouse

• Outputs

– Baseline and incremental markups.
69 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups Analysis

• Markups relate consumer price to cost of goods sold (CGS• Baseline markups relate price to cost prior to a change in 

– Baseline markups indicate a consumer price that covers all o

or distributor’s expenses plus profit. 

– Direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental and occupancy) a

• Incremental markups relate the incremental change in con

to the incremental change in CGS. 

– Some costs remain constant with CGS increases. – Incremental markups cover only expenses that vary with CG

case, expenses that increase due to an increase in product 

 For example, direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental 

occupancy) do not vary with efficiency-induced changes 

– DOE assumes other operating costs and profit scale proport

CGS. 
70 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups Analysis

• Weighting the values by the respective shares of each cha

an average overall baseline markup of 1.63 and an overall 

markup of 1.50.

Issue 15: DOE requests comments about viable alternativapproaches or source of information that could be used to product prices.
71 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markup Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis Energy Use 

Characterization

Market & Technology Assessment
72 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

Purpose

• Develop annual energy use data for electric motors based 

operating conditions

Method

• DOE developed average energy use values by using typica

operating profiles associated to different applications (e.g., compressors, fans, and pumps)

• Developed distributions of electric motor operating hours a

loading data to account for variability in the field

• Include power factor effects on local power circuit• Focus on representative units
73 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

• For electric motors, the energy used by the motors refers to 

“energy losses”, the rest is converted to useful mechanical 

• Annual energy use (motors losses and mechanical power)Where:

– E: Annual energy use (kWh/yr);– HP: Motor capacity (hp);– L: Motor load (%);– Hop: Annual operating hours (hr/yr); and

– η(L): efficiency at load L (%).

• Motor annual losses, in kWh:

  Hop LLHP E      746.0

LEE ))(1( losses   
74 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

• DOE developed a model of motor population based on liter

review and 123 field assessment data*:

– Established distributions across sectors and applications.

Distribution by Sector (example): All equipment class groups, 6-20 HP Motors

Distribution by Application (eEquipment class group 1, 6-2

Com

Pumps 

33.0%

Material 

Handling 

6.8%

Other 

31.4%

Industry 

26%

Agriculture 

0.1%

Commercial

74%

*Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data compiled by the Washington State University Extension Energy P

Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (
75 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

– Determined average values for annual operating hours by ap

sector, and horsepower range.

Average Operating Hours (Industry sector)

Application 1-5 hp 6-20 hp 21-50 hp 51-100 hp 101-200 

Air Compressors 4,647 5,033 4,578 5,337 6,226 

Fans 6,193 6,490 5,849 6,975 7,163 Pumps 6,028 6,773 6,972 6,869 6,985 Material Handling 6,486 6,284 6,518 6,315 7,172 Other 6,571 6,274 6,814 7,128 7,337 
76 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

– Developed statistical distributions to account for variability in t

Operating Hours Cumulative Distribution. Example: Equipment 1, 21-50 hp, Industry sector.

0.0%

20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%120.0%

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Cumulative Distribution

Operating Hours (Hours)

Air compFansPumpsMaterial Hand ProcOthers
77 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

Application Average Annual Load in Percentage

Air Compressors 69.6

Fans 60.4Pumps 68.3Material Handling 48.3Other 70.5

Average motor load (all equipment classes)

– Determined average values for motor load by application.
78 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

• Used engineering test data which provides efficiency vs. lo

measurements for each CSL to develop losses vs. load rela

Example of Losses (watts) vs. Load (percent) for Representative 

Representative 

Unit 1 CSL

Operating Load

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 

NEMA Design 

A and B, 5 HP, 

4 Poles, 

Enclosed 

Motor

0 234.2 282.8 381.4 545.6 791.2 11 169.6 197.0 260.3 369.0 532.9 72 158.0 183.8 230.6 311.1 437.6 3 150.3 167.9 213.2 290.7 405.3 54 143.5 167.0 209.2 274.8 368.9 45 135.3 152.3 190.1 251.0 337.6 4
79 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Use Characterization

Representative 

Unit Description hp kilowatt-hours per year CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 

1 NEMA Design B, Tframe, 4 poles, 

enclosed

5 10,448 9,869 9,691 9,616 

2 30 57,642 55,912 55,021 54,492 3 75 204,834 202,540 198,496 197,697 

Average Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Representative 

Unit Description hp kilowatt-hours per year CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 

4 NEMA Design C, T- frame, 4 poles, 

enclosed

5 9,987 9,808 9,738 9,630 

5 50 89,523 88,507 88,119 87,444 

Representative 

Unit Description hp kilowatt-hours per year CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 

6

Fire pump, 4 poles, 

enclosed

5 19.6 19.2 19.1 19.0 

7 30 1,601 1,577 1,562 1,558 

8 75 97,791 95,934 95,554 95,313 
80 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comments

Issue 16: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcdata that could be used to establish the distribution of macross sectors by horsepower range. Issue 17: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcdata that could be used to establish the sector-specific distribution of motors across applications. Issue 18: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcfield data on motor operating hours and loading that couused to improve field use characterization in the commeand agricultural sectors. 
81 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact Analysis

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview

423 Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65

Test Procedure

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses
82 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markup Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis Energy Use 

Characterization

Market & Technology Assessment
83 | Building Technologies Program 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Purpose

• Assess the LCC impacts and PBP for the consumers of ele

under the considered efficiency levels

Method

• LCC equals total installed costs plus the sum of annual op

discounted to a particular base year

• Analysis will model the uncertainty and variability of inputs 

Carlo approach and probability distributions

• Analysis will be implemented in MS Excel® spreadsheet c

Crystal Ball®
84 | Building Technologies Program 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Baseline 

Manufacturer 

Cost Engineering 

Analysis Std-Level 

Manufacturer 

Cost

Manufacturer 

Markup

Markups Analysis

Distributer & 

Contractor 

Markups

Sales Tax

Energy Use Characterization

Energy 

Consumption

Energy

Prices

Consumer

Price

Installation

Cost

Total

Installed Cost

Annual

Energy Cost

Repair

Cost

Maintenance

Cost

Annual

Operating 

Expense

Lifetime

Discount

Rate

Energy Price 

Trend

L

Op

E

Pa

P
85 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Prices

• Electricity prices are used to convert energy use to energy • DOE considered regional electricity prices by sector.• DOE uses projections of national average energy prices for 

and industrial customers – from the most recent EIA AnnuaOutlook (AEO) – to project future energy prices for the LCC 

• DOE also surveyed reactive power prices.
86 | Building Technologies Program 

Energy Prices

Census Region

Industry/Agriculture Commercial sector

20011$/kWh 2011$/kWh

Northeast 0.103 0.149Midwest 0.084 0.095South 0.078 0.100West 0.094 0.120

Average 

(weighted) 0.087 0.111

0.900.951.001.051.101.15

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 

Price Trend (2010=1)

Reference High 

Average Electricity Prices in 2010

Industrial Electricity Price 

Source: EIA Form 861 Source: AEO 2011
87 | Building Technologies Program 

Life-Cycle Cost Discount Rates

• DOE uses the discount rate to determine the present value 

operating expenses.

• DOE derived a distribution of discount rates for the comme

industrial sectors.

– These distributions were developed by estimating the weighte

cost of capital (WACC) for commercial and industrial consumemotors.

– WACC includes:

 Financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase equipment Opportunity cost of any equity to purchase equipment.
88 | Building Technologies Program 

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs

• DOE evaluated how installation, maintenance, and repair co

with increased efficiency. Data sources included: 

– RS Means; – Vaughens;– Manufacturer literature; and,– Expert consultants.

• Installation costs: DOE assumed no changes in installation c

increased efficiency (no changes in motor frame designation increased efficiency)

• Repair costs : DOE developed a repair cost model based on 

data.

• Maintenance costs: DOE assumed no changes with increase
89 | Building Technologies Program 

Impact of Repair

• Impact of repair on efficiency:

– One-third of repairs are performed following industry re

practice and do not affect the efficiency of the motor.

– Two-thirds of repairs do not follow industry recommend

 Efficiency drops by 1 percent (<40 hp), Efficiency drops by 0.5 percent (>=40 hp).

• Average repair frequency:

– For NEMA Design A, B, and C medium motors, repair o

32,000 hours operation, or 5, 16, and 15 years in the in

commercial, and agricultural sectors, respectively.

– For fire pump electric motors, assumed there is no repa

low operating hours.
90 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comments

Issue 19: DOE welcomes comments on the current methused to determine motor repair costs.Issue 20: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcedetermining the frequency of motor repair depending on equipment class, sector, and application. Issue 21: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcedata on motor maintenance costs. Specifically, DOE invitcomment on how amended efficiency requirements may maintenance costs. Issue 22: DOE may consider technology options that coaffect a motor’s mechanical configuration. DOE invites comment on how changes in motor mechanical configurathat may accompany more efficient motors may affect installation costs.
91 | Building Technologies Program 

Electric Motors Lifetimes

• DOE used information from various literature sources and ex

to establish motor lifetimes in hours by horsepower range.

Horsepower Range Mechanical Lifetime

hp hours 

1 – 5 31,505

6 – 20 32,850

21 – 50 64,881

51 – 100 67,819

101 – 200 106,424201 – 500 108,398

Motor Mechanical Lifetime by Horsepower Range Across All S

• In the LCC, DOE considered a negative correlation betwee

lifetime (in years) and operating hours.
92 | Building Technologies Program 

Electric Motors Lifetimes

Estimated Average Lifetime for Equipment Class Group 1

Horsepower 

Range 

Weighted Average Lifetime

yr

hp Industrial Commercial Agr

1-5 5 15 

6-20 5 14 

21-50 10 26 

51-100 10 26 

101-200 15 29 

201-500 15 29 
93 | Building Technologies Program 

Electric Motors Lifetimes

• For motors below 75 horsepower which are most often embe

larger equipment, DOE assumed that the motor is retired whits lifetime or when the equipment of which it is a part reachewhichever happens first.

Issue 23: DOE seeks comment on any additional sourcedata on motor lifetime that could be used to validate DOEestimates of motor mechanical lifetime and its method of estimating lifetimes.
94 | Building Technologies Program 

Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

• Base case efficiency assignment accounts for the projected 

of motors at different efficiency levels.

– Not all motors considered in the analysis are covered by the cu– Not all consumers purchase motors meeting the current minimu– LCC analysis recognizes that consumers already purchasing m

efficiencies greater than or equal to a prospective standard leveimpacted by the standard.
95 | Building Technologies Program 

Level Note Label 

0 Lowest observed efficiency under expanded 

scope Minimum Commercially Available 

1 EPACT 1992 requirement, with additional efficiency levels added in NEMA MG1-2011 Standard 

2

EISA 2007 requirement for general purpose electric motors (subtype I), with additional efficiency values added in NEMA MG1-2011

Premium 

3 One NEMA nominal efficiency level improvement relative to the Premium level Best-in-Market 

4 One NEMA nominal efficiency level improvement relative to CSL 3 Incremental 

5 One NEMA nominal efficiency level improvement relative to CSL 4 Maximum Technology 

Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

Efficiency Distribution for Equipment Class Group 1, 1-5 HP

• DOE established the base case efficiency distribution using d

major motor manufacturers and distributor’s 2011 catalog (m

• DOE used these data to establish efficiency distributions by 

class group and horsepower range.
96 | Building Technologies Program 

Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

Issue 24: DOE seeks comment on the estimated base cdistribution of equipment efficiencies and on any additionsources of data. 
97 | Building Technologies Program 

Results

Efficiency 

Level

Full Load 

Nominal 

Efficiency

%

Life-Cycle Cost (2010$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

Average 

Installed 

Price

$

Average 

Energy 

Use

kWh/yr

Average 

Operating 

Cost

$

Average 

LCC

$

Average 

Savings 

(2010$)

$

Customers with

Net 

Cost 

%

Net 

Benefit 

%

0 82.5 584 10,448 1,006 5,9261 87.5 588 9,869 969 5,649 16 0.1 5.8 2 89.5 651 9,691 963 5,631 25 18.9 26.4 3 90.2 665 9,616 960 5,608 45 20.5 67.8 4 91.0 909 9,567 960 5,831 -169 89.3 6.5 5 91.7 998 9,487 958 5,883 -220 93.3 5.4 

Example of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA DesigT Frame, 5 HP, Four Poles, Enclosed Motor
98 | Building Technologies Program 

Results

Efficiency 

Level

Full Load 

Nominal 

Efficiency

%

Life-Cycle Cost (2010$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings 

Average 

Installed 

Price

$

Average 

Energy 

Use

kWh/yr

Average 

Operating 

Cost

$

Average 

LCC

$

Average 

Savings 

(2010$)

$

Customers with

Net 

Cost 

%

Net 

Benefit

%

0 93.0 3,463 204,834 17,168 124,170

1 94.1 3,831 202,540 17,033 123,348 40 0.8 4.5 2 95.4 4,296 198,496 16,733 121,510 663 1.4 32.9 3 95.8 4,776 197,697 16,687 121,590 597 35.1 47.5 4 96.2 6,044 197,194 16,661 122,598 -340 66.9 25.9 5 96.5 6,640 196,604 16,631 122,905 -639 73.6 23.7 

Example of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA DesigT Frame, 75 HP, Four Poles, Enclosed Motor
99 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact Analysis

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview

423 Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65

Test Procedure

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses
100 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markup Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis Energy Use 

Characterization

Market & Technology Assessment
101 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

Purpose

• To estimate electric motor shipments in the base case a

standards cases

Method

• The shipments model relies on two main sources:

– Current and historical shipments data (Market research re

inputs from interested parties, U.S. Census, NEMA)

– Fixed investment data (Bureau of Economic Analysis)– Gross Domestic Product projections (AEO 2011)

• Assuming shipments are driven by economic growth an

investments in equipment including motors. 
102 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

• DOE uses a shipments model driven by fixed investmen

selected equipment

0

20406080

100120140160180

Index 2001=100

ShipmentsIndexPrivate Fixed Investment Index in Selected Equipment and Structure
103 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

• Shipments index vs. Private fixed investment index:

Shipmentsindex (y) = 1.15126·FixInvestindex (y) – 15.1726

Where, Shipmentsindex (y) = Shipments(y) / Shipments(

FixInvestindex (y) =FixInvest(y) / FixInvest (200

• Shipments projections (in units) based on private fixed i

projections using: 

– 2011 Annual Energy Outlook (2015 – 2035),– Extrapolations (2036 – 2044).
104 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

• Annual shipments of covered motors were estimated to to

million units in 2011.

Range 

(hp)

2011 Shipments

(thousand units)

Percentage o

(%)

1-5 2,688 

6-20 1,368 

21-50 342 

51-100 114 

101-200 46 

201-500 23 

Total 4,560 
105 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

• Shipments projection

Annual Shipments

(thousand units)

Equipment Class Group 2015 2025 2035 2044 C

2

NEMA Design A and B 5,072 7,254 9,958 13,005 NEMA Design C 10 15 20 26 Fire Pump Electric Motors 6 9 12 16 Total 5,098 7,278 9,990 13,047 
106 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis Shipments Analysis

• DOE used a wide range of sources to establish the distr

across equipment class groups and equipment classes: 

– Current and historical shipments data (Market research re

from interested parties, U.S. Census),

– A database of 123 plant assessments*.

Issue 25: DOE seeks comment on any additional sources omotor shipments that could be used to validate its shipmentand estimates. 

*Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data compiled by the Washington State University Extension Energy P

Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (
107 | Building Technologies Program 

Base-Case Shipments Projection Approach

• Provides the basis to compare projections for higher effic

levels (standards case).

• Depicts the situation where new or amended standards a

adopted.

• Depicts the current and projected mix of electric motor e

sold in the absence of new regulation.

– DOE assumed no changes in motor shipment efficiencies i

absence of new regulation (constant and equal to 2011 lev

Issue 26: DOE seeks further comment on its tentative decisconstant efficiencies for the analysis period. Specifically, DOcomments on additional sources of data on trends in efficienimprovement.
108 | Building Technologies Program 

Standards Impacts on Motor Shipments

• Increased electric motor prices could affect the repair vs

decision that the user makes and could lead to increasinlongevity of less efficient electric motors and decreased shipments. 

• No data to quantitatively estimate the impact of increase

prices (from higher efficiency standard levels) on shipme

• Used a price elasticity equal to zero as a default. 
109 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for comment

Issue 27: DOE seeks comment on any sources of data that used to quantitatively estimate motor price elasticity. DOE acomments on any additional sources of data on the share of shipments which are for new installation, and the share of shwhich are for replacement.
110 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

ScreeningAnalysis

EngineeringAnalysis

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markup Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis Energy Use 

Characterization

Market & Technology Assessment
111 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis

Purpose

• For equipment shipped from 2015 to 2044:

– To estimate the National Energy Savings (NES) from new 

amended energy conservation standards at different efficilevels

– To estimate the national economic impact electric motor u

the Net Present Value (NPV)) from energy conservation sat different efficiency levels

Method

• DOE calculates national energy savings by multiplying u

lifetime energy savings by projected shipments and accuthis projected value over the 30 years

• DOE calculates the NPV by accumulating the difference 

year between energy bill savings and increased equipmexpenditures for all motors shipped over the 30 year per
112 | Building Technologies Program 

National Energy Savings Flow Diagram

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2044

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2017

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2016

Base Case

Lifetime Energy

Consumption

2015

Shipments

Analysis Sta

Cas

Base-Case Projection

Base Case

Annual Ener

Consumptio

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2017

Base Case

Annual Energy

Consumption

2016

Standards Case

Lifetime Energy

Consumption

2015

Base-Case

Cumulative

Energy Use

Standards-Case 

Cumulative

Energy Use

Site to Primary

Energy

Conversion

National Energy

Savings
113 | Building Technologies Program 

National Consumer Net Present Value Flow Diagram

Shipments

Analysis Standa

Case P

Energy

Cost

(2015 –

2044)

Base-Case 

Projection

Cumulative

Energy Cost 

Savings

Cumulative

Non Energy

Cost Increase

Discount 

Rate

Net Present

Value

Rep, Maint,

Cost

(2015 –

2044)

Total Install 

Cost

(2015 –

2044)

Energy

Cost

(2015 –

2044)

Rep, Maint,

Cost

(2015 –

2044)

T
114 | Building Technologies Program 

National Impact Analysis Inputs

Total Installed Cost Scaled across equipment classes based on the engineering outputs a

the efficiency level.

Repair and Maintenance Costs

Repair costs are a function of motor configuration and efficiency leveconstant maintenance costs across efficiency levels.

Weight Scaled (same method used for Total Installed Cost) Annual Energy Use Annual average values per equipment class and efficiency level calcu

inputs from the Energy Use Characterization.

Base-Case Efficiencies

Shipments-weighted efficiencies based on base case efficiency distribpresented in the LCC analysis.Frozen at the effective year and constant across the analysis period.

Standards-Case Projected Efficiencies

Roll-up scenario assumed for determining shipment-weighted efficienstandards case.Frozen at the effective year and constant across the analysis period.

Energy Prices Average prices and projected energy prices from EIA AEO2011 foreca

extrapolation to 2044. 

Electricity Site-toPrimary Conversion Factors

Conversion factors based on NEMS corresponding to AEO 2011. Factand account for generation, distribution, and transmission losses.

Discount Rate 7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis GuidelinPresent Year Future expenses are discounted to the year 2011.

National Impact Analysis
115 | Building Technologies Program 

Total Installed Cost 

• Includes direct equipment costs and shipping costs. • Developed MSP and weight data from engineering analy

equipment classes:

– At each CSL, for 4 poles, enclosed motors, DOE develope

relationship between MSP (/weight) and horsepower for eaequipment class group, based on the data for the represen(power law regressions).

y = 123.72x0.

R2 = 0.999

y = 110.95x0.6

R2 = 0.9995

‐

500

1,0001,5002,0002,500

0 20 40 60 80 

MSP (2010$)

Horsepower

NEMADesigns A and B Electric Motors(4 

246 8 2 4 6 8

1

1.5

235 358

7.5

1015202530 1,193

40506075 2,270

100125150200250300350400450500

Open Enclosed CSL 2/MSP
116 | Building Technologies Program 

Total Installed Cost 

• Developed MSP and weight data from engineering analy

equipment classes:

– At each CSL and horsepower rating, DOE established an i

describe how MSP (/weight) varies by pole and enclosure statistical estimates derived from a database of motor spec

CSL

2246824681 0.957 0.972 0.987 1.002 0.985 1.000 1.015 1.030

1.5 0.939 0.960 0.981 1.002 0.979 1.000 1.021 1.042

2 0.922 0.949 0.976 1.003 0.973 1.000 1.027 1.0543 0.891 0.929 0.966 1.004 0.962 1.000 1.038 1.0755 0.842 0.897 0.951 1.006 0.945 1.000 1.055 1.109

7.5 0.796 0.867 0.937 1.008 0.930 1.000 1.070 1.141

10 0.762 0.844 0.927 1.009 0.918 1.000 1.082 1.16515 0.713 0.813 0.912 1.011 0.901 1.000 1.099 1.19820 0.681 0.791 0.902 1.012 0.890 1.000 1.110 1.22125 0.658 0.776 0.894 1.013 0.882 1.000 1.118 1.23730 0.640 0.764 0.889 1.014 0.875 1.000 1.125 1.24940 0.615 0.748 0.881 1.015 0.867 1.000 1.133 1.26650 0.599 0.738 0.876 1.015 0.861 1.000 1.139 1.27860 0.587 0.730 0.873 1.016 0.857 1.000 1.143 1.28675 0.574 0.722 0.869 1.016 0.853 1.000 1.147 1.294

100 0.561 0.713 0.865 1.017 0.848 1.000 1.152 1.304125 0.553 0.707 0.862 1.017 0.845 1.000 1.155 1.309150 0.547 0.704 0.860 1.017 0.843 1.000 1.157 1.313200 0.540 0.699 0.858 1.017 0.841 1.000 1.159 1.319250 0.535 0.696 0.857 1.018 0.839 1.000 1.161 1.322300 0.532 0.694 0.856 1.018 0.838 1.000 1.162 1.324350 0.530 0.692 0.855 1.018 0.837 1.000 1.163 1.325400 0.528 0.691 0.855 1.018 0.837 1.000 1.163 1.327450 0.527 0.690 0.854 1.018 0.836 1.000 1.164 1.327500 0.526 0.690 0.854 1.018 0.836 1.000 1.164 1.328

Open Encl

CSL

22468241 0.957 0.972 0.987 1.002 0.985 1.000 

1.5 0.939 0.960 0.981 1.002 0.979 1.000 

2 0.922 0.949 0.976 1.003 0.973 1.000 3 0.891 0.929 0.966 1.004 0.962 1.000 5 0.842 0.897 0.951 1.006 0.945 1.000 

Open Enc
117 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for comment

Issue 28: DOE seeks comment on its scaled values for MSPparticular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology for scadata from the representative equipment classes to the remaequipment classes.Issue 29: DOE seeks comment on the scaled values for moweights. In particular, DOE seeks comments on its methodoscaling weight data from the representative equipment classremaining equipment classes.
118 | Building Technologies Program 

• NES Summary (quads) primary energy

National Impact Assessment

Motor 

Size hp All hp 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-200 

Equipment Class Group 1 – NEMA Designs A & BCSL 1 0.972 0.270 0.284 0.161 0.108 0.07

CSL 2 4.414 0.954 1.211 0.668 0.527 0.41

CSL 3 7.527 1.509 1.980 1.179 0.937 0.83

CSL 4 10.836 2.123 2.855 1.704 1.378 1.26CSL 5 13.005 2.701 3.201 1.704 1.789 1.68Equipment Class Group 2 – NEMA Design CCSL 1 0.012 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.00

CSL 2 0.018 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.002 0.00

CSL 3 0.024 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.00

Equipment Class Group 3 – Fire PumpsCSL 1 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.00

CSL 2 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.00

CSL 3 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.00

CSL 4 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.00
119 | Building Technologies Program 

• Equipment class group 1 - NPV Summary (billion 2011$

National Impact Assessment

Discount 

Rate %

ALL

hp

1-5 

hp

6-21 

hp

21-50 

hp

51-100 

hp

101

h

Equipment Class Group 1 – NEMA Designs A & BCSL 1

3 5.53 1.67 1.78 0.94 0.54 

7 2.32 0.73 0.76 0.38 0.22 

CSL 2

3 18.42 3.57 5.52 2.98 2.27 

7 7.07 1.39 2.15 1.13 0.90 

CSL 3

3 30.19 5.65 8.50 4.91 3.71 

7 11.42 2.24 3.25 1.80 1.43 

CSL 4

3 -6.63 -6.29 -4.67 -1.32 0.57 

7 -10.37 -4.47 -4.37 -1.90 -0.50 

CSL 5

3 -8.63 -8.81 -5.92 -1.32 0.64 

7 -12.71 -6.09 -5.26 -1.90 -0.70 
120 | Building Technologies Program 

• Equipment class group 2 - NPV Summary (billion 2011$

National Impact Assessment

Discount 

Rate %

ALL

hp

1-5 

hp

6-21 

hp

21-50 

hp

51-100 

hp

101

h

Equipment Class Group 2 – NEMA Designs CCSL 1

3 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 

7 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 

CSL 2

3 0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 

7 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

CSL 3

3 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 

7 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 
121 | Building Technologies Program 

• Equipment class group 3 - NPV Summary (billion 2011$

National Impact Assessment

Discount 

Rate %

ALL

hp

1-5 

hp

6-21 

hp

21-50 

hp

51-100 

hp

101

h

Equipment Class Group 3 – Fire Pump Electric motorsCSL 1 3 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 

7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

CSL 2 3 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 

7 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 

CSL 3 3 -0.10 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 

7 -0.05 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 

CSL 4 3 -0.11 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.00 

7 -0.06 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 
122 | Building Technologies Program 

Markups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact Analysis

Public Meeting Agenda

1 Overview

423 Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65

Test Procedure

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

7 Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses
123 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: Preliminary Analysis

Framework

Document

PreliminaryAnalysis NOPR Final Rule

Market & Technology AssessmentScreening Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Energy Use Characterization

ShipmentsAnalysis

Markups Analysis

Life-CycleCost andPayback Period Analysis

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Effective 

Date
124 | Building Technologies Program 

Manufacturer Impact AnalysisOverview

Purpose

• To identify the impacts of amended energy conservation st

manufacturers.

• Key output of MIA is the change in industry net present va

due to amended standards.

• The MIA consists of three phases:

Industry profile

Develop straw-man GRIM*

Develop interview guide

Interviews& industrywide / subgroupanalyses

Assess direemploymencompetitiocumulative burden

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
125 | Building Technologies Program 

Manufacturer Impact AnalysisOverview

Phase 1• DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and 

important issues that require consideration.

Phase 2• DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and an interview que

guide subsequent discussions.

Phase 3• DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of ame

standards both quantitatively (using the Government Regulatory and qualitatively (impacts on competition, manufacturing capacityand regulatory burden).

Industry profile

Develop straw-man GRIM*

Develop interview guide

Interviews& industrywide / subgroupanalyses

Assess direemploymencompetitiocumulative burden

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
126 | Building Technologies Program 

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis – Key Issues

• Increase in equipment repair

– Higher efficiency standards may drive consumers to rewind ol

efficient motors rather than buy new, more expensive electric 

• Copper rotor motors

– With a higher melting point than aluminum, copper can be mo

to fabricate. The higher temperatures required for copper rotoincrease energy costs and reduce tooling life during fabricatio

– Reduced starting performance (higher inrush current and lowe

torque).

– Significant increases in material and fabrication costs.

• Enforcement

– Domestic manufacturers may be disproportionately affected b

standards if DOE does not broadly enforce energy efficiency rfor all covered motors, including imports from foreign countrie
127 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 30: DOE requests comment on additional key manufacturer impact issues.
128 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer 

Subgroup 

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
129 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer 

Subgroup 

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
130 | Building Technologies Program 

Revised Preliminary Analysis

Analysis Action

Engineering Analysis

• Consider comments• Revise using latest data

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

• Consider comments• Revise using latest data• Conduct LCC sub-group analysis

National Impacts Analysis

• Consider comments• Revise using latest data
131 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer

Subgroup

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
132 | Building Technologies Program 

Customer Subgroup Analysis

Purpose

• Analyze the economic impacts of standards on consum

including subgroups who may be disproportionately impcompared with the general user population

– A subgroup comprises a subset of the population likely to 

disaffected disproportionately by new or revised energy conservation standards (e.g., small businesses)

Method

• Extend the LCC analysis to examine the impacts for def

subgroups

• DOE will use inputs specific to each of the considered c

subgroups
133 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 31: DOE welcomes comment on what, if any, cussubgroups are appropriate in considering standards for electric motors.
134 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer

Subgroup

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
135 | Building Technologies Program 

Employment Impact Analysis

Purpose

• Assess the overall impact on national employment from the 

of energy conservation standards at differing levels

• Include both direct and indirect employment impacts:

– Direct employment impacts are estimated in the manufacture

analysis

– Indirect employment impacts result from shifting consumer ex

among goods and services ( “substitution effect”) and changinand energy costs (“income effect”)

Method

• DOE intends to use the Impact of Sector Energy Technolog

model for the evaluation of indirect employment impacts. 

Issue 30: DOE welcomes feedback on its proposed approacassessing national employment impacts, both direct and indi
136 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer

Subgroup

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
137 | Building Technologies Program 

Utility Impact Analysis

Purpose

• Assess the overall impacts on domestic energy supplies 

would result from the imposition of standards

• Uses the Energy Information Administration’s National E

Modeling System (NEMS) tailored for DOE’s Building Technologies Program (NEMS-BT)

• DOE will model the energy savings impacts from amend

energy conservation standards using NEMS-BT to geneprojections that deviate from the AEO reference case

• Outputs of the utility impact analysis include projections 

electricity generation, and avoided capacity resulting from comparison of base and standards cases

Method
138 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comments

Issue 32: DOE welcomes input from interested parties on its use of NEMS-BT to conduct the utility impact analysis. 
139 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer 

Subgroup 

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
140 | Building Technologies Program 

Emissions Analysis

Purpose

• To report emission impacts resulting from amended ener

conservation standards, including changes in power planemissions and full fuel cycle emissions.

Method

• Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Mod

System (NEMS) provides power-plant emissions

– Carbon dioxide (CO2) will be the primary emissions reported

– Mercury (Hg) emissions will also be reported– Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions will be reported for the 22 s

where emissions are not capped

– Existing legislation cap Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), so physical em

reductions will be nearly zero from any single energy consestandard
141 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 33: DOE seeks input on its plan to use NEMS-BT to coemissions analysis for the products covered by this rulemaki
142 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer 

Subgroup 

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
143 | Building Technologies Program 

Monetization of Emission Reductions

• DOE intends to use the most current Social Cost of Carbo

values developed by interagency reviews.

– SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incrementa

resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including blimited to agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, damage from rising sea level, and changes in the ecosystem

• At present, the most recent interagency estimates of the p

global benefits resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 20

$5.0, $22.5, $37.0, and $68.4 per metric ton in 2011 dollar

– For emission reductions that occur in later years, these value

real terms over time.

• DOE will also estimate the potential monetary benefit of re

NOx emissions resulting from the considered standard leve
144 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 34: DOE requests comments on the approach it puse for estimating monetary values associated with emisreductions, or any widely-accepted values that could be in DOE’s analyses. 
145 | Building Technologies Program 

Steps in the Standards Rulemaking: NOPR

Framework

Document NOPR Final Rule Effective Date

EngineeringAnalysis

Life-CycleCost &Payback PeriodAnalyses

National

Impact

Analysis

PreliminaryAnalysis

Manufacturer

Impact 

Analysis

Utility

Impact 

Analysis

Employment

Impact

Analysis

Customer

Subgroup

Analysis

Revise Preliminary Analysis

Emissions Analysis

Monetizatiof EmissioReduction
146 | Building Technologies Program 

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Purpose

• To investigate the national impacts of non-regulatory altern

compared with mandatory energy conservation standards

• The non-regulatory alternatives that may be considered inc

consumer rebates; consumer tax credits; manufacturer tax voluntary efficiency levels; early replacement; and bulk govprocurement

Method

• Modify NES spreadsheet model to consider non-regulatory • NPV calculated for non-regulatory alternatives in the same w

the standard case

• Each non-regulatory scenario will decrease national operati

and increase equipment prices.

• Output will include National Energy Savings and Net Presen

the non-regulatory alternatives
147 | Building Technologies Program 

Request for Comment

Issue 35: DOE invites comments on the ability of voluntainitiatives or other non-regulatory efforts by manufactureachieve significant energy savings and reasonable costs
148 | Building Technologies Program 

• In all correspondence, please refer to the Electric Motors rul

– Electric Motors Rulemaking,– Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD–0027, and– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AC28

• Email: ElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.gov• Comment period closes: September 7, 2012

How to Submit Written Comments

Postal: Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0121

Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergBuilding Technologies Pro950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Tel: 202 586-2945
149 | Building Technologies Program 

• DOE Appliance Standards

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

• Electric Motors Rule

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/c

lectric_motors.html

• Electric Motors Test Procedure

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/c

lectric_motors.html

Relevant URLs