1 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govThe Parker Ranch installation in HawaiiBUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAMPreliminary Analysis Public Meetingon Energy Conservation Standardsfor Electric MotorsJames RabaDepartment of EnergyEnergy Efficiency & Renewable EnergyElecMotors-2010-STD-0027@ee.doe.govAugust 21, 20122 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• 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 (raisehand to be recognized; state yourname for the record)– Set cell phones to silent/vibrate• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening RemarksWelcome and Introduction3 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMorning Agenda9:00 – 9:30 amWelcome, Introductions, Agenda Review9:30 – 10:00 amPurpose of Public Meeting, Rulemaking Overview, andOpening Statements10:00 – 10:45 amMarket and Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis10:45 – 11:00 amBreak11:00 – 11:45 amEngineering Analysis11:45 – 12:30 pmMarkups, Energy Use Characterization, and Life-Cycle Costand Payback Period Analysis4 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govAfternoon Agenda1:30 – 2:15 pmLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis (continued)2:15 – 2:45 pmNational Impacts Analysis2:45 – 3:00 pmBreak3:00 – 3:30 pmPreliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis3:30 – 3:45 pmNext Steps3:45 – 4:00 pmClosing Remarks5 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups; Energy Use CharacterizationNational Impact AnalysisPublic Meeting Agenda1Overview423Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65Test ProcedureLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis7Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses6 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Present the procedural and analytical approaches to evaluateenergy conservation standards for electric motors.• Provide a forum for public discussion of rulemaking issues.• Encourage interested parties to submit data, information, and writtencomments.• Inform interested parties and facilitate the rulemaking process.Purpose of the Preliminary AnalysisPublic Meeting7 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue BoxThe Department welcomes comments, data,and information regarding electric motors energyconservation standards. Throughout this presentation,specific issues will be raised for discussion on slides suchas this,with identifying numbers corresponding toissues for comment from section three in the executivesummary of the preliminary TSD.Nonetheless,comments concerning any part of the document orpresentation are welcome.8 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• In all correspondence, please refer tothe Electric Motors rulemaking by:– 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, 2012Feedback Is RequestedPostal:Hand Delivery/Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0121Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Suite 600950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Tel: 202-586-29459 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of1975 (Public Law 94-163)– Established the “Energy Conservation Programfor Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.”– Subsequent amendments to EPCA gave DOE theauthority to regulate the energy efficiency ofseveral types of equipment, including electricmotors.• Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 (Public Law102-486)– Prescribed energy efficiency standards for certaincommercial & industrial motors.Regulatory History10 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of2007 (Public Law 110-140)– Updated the energy efficiency standards forelectric motors established in EPACT 1992.– Established energy efficiency standards for alarger scope of electric motors, not previouslycovered.– Compliance date for new standards wasDecember 19, 2010.• Current Rulemaking– EPCA requires DOE to determine by rule whetherto amend energy conservation standards forelectric motors.– Any standards that DOE establishes would have acompliance date no sooner than December 19,2015.Regulatory History (Continued)11 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• EPCA specifies that any standard DOE prescribes for electricmotors, 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 significantconservation of energy. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)EPCA Factors12 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEPCA Factors (Continued)42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) directs DOE to consider seven factorswhen determining whether a standard is economically justified:EPCA FactorsDOE Analysis1. Economic impact on consumers andmanufacturersLife-Cycle Cost AnalysisManufacturer Impact Analysis2. Lifetime operating cost savings comparedto increased cost for the productLife-Cycle Cost Analysis3. Total projected energy savings National Impact Analysis4. Impact on utility or performance Engineering AnalysisScreening Analysis5. Impact of any lessening of competition Manufacturer Impact Analysis6. Need for national energy conservation National Impact Analysis7. Other factors the Secretary considersrelevantEnvironmental AssessmentUtility Impact AnalysisEmployment Impact Analysis13 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleMarket &TechnologyAssessmentScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupsAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisPreliminaryManufacturerImpact AnalysisEffectiveDate14 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReductions15 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govAnalyses for Final RuleFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleRevise NOPRAnalysesPreliminaryAnalysis16 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govElectric MotorsRulemaking Schedule201220152013201420162017MilestoneDateFederal Register Notice of Public Meeting and Availabilityof the Preliminary Technical Support DocumentJuly, 2012Issue NOPR2013Issue Final Rule2013Compliance Date201517 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkup Analysis; Energy Use & End-Use LoadNational Impact AnalysisPublic Meeting Agenda1Overview423Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65Test ProcedureLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis7Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses18 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• On January 5, 2011, DOE published a Supplemental Notice of ProposedRulemaking (SNOPR) test procedure. (76 FR 648)– Proposed updates to industry testing standards for electric motors.– Proposed clarifications to scope ofcoverage for electric motors.– Proposed revisions to definitions ofterms related to electric motors.– Proposed revisions to guidance in Appendix A to Subpart B of 10 CFR 431.• On May 4, 2012, DOE published a test procedure Final Rule for electricmotors in which it finalized the issues proposed in the SNOPR. (77 FR26608)– Adopted updates to industry testing standards.– Adopted clarifications to scope ofcoverage for electric motors.– Adopted definitions of terms related toelectric motors, including a definition forthe term ‘electric motor.’– DOE elected to remove Appendix Afrom the CFR and will post updated guidanceon DOE’s electric motors website instead.Test ProcedureRegulatory History19 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govElectric MotorsGeneral PurposeElectric Motors(Subtype I)General PurposeElectric Motors(Subtype II)NEMA Design BElectric Motors(>200 HP – 500 HP)Fire Pump ElectricMotorsAdded definition andclarified coverageAdded definition andclarified coverageClarified coverageClarified coverageTP Final Rule ChangesScope of Coverage for ElectricMotors under EISA 200720 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govCurrent Test Procedure• The test procedure has been updated to include more current versionsof the referenced standards.Efficiency and losses shall be determined in accordance withNEMA MG1–2009, paragraph 12.58.1, “Determination of MotorEfficiency and Losses,” and either:•CSA Standard C390–10, or•IEEE Standard 112–2004 Test Method B, Input-Output WithLoss Segregation.21 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups; Energy Use CharacterizationNational Impact AnalysisPublic Meeting Agenda1Overview423Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65Test ProcedureLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis7Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses22 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleMarket &TechnologyAssessmentScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupsAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisPreliminaryManufacturerImpact AnalysisEffectiveDate23 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Market and Technology Assessment– Characterize the electric motor market and industry.• Define the scope of coverage for energy conservation standards.– Identify the technology options to improve electric motor efficiency.– Establish equipment classes.• Screening Analysis– Screen out technology options that DOE will not consider in theengineering analysis for electric motors based on several criteria.Purpose24 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRelationship of Market and TechnologyAssessment to other AnalysesMarket and TechnologyAssessmentEquipment ClassesTechnology options to improve efficiencyScreening AnalysisDesign options to improve efficiencyEngineering Analysis25 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Current energy conservation standardsexist for the following groups ofelectric 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 characteristics:– Is a single-speed, induction motor,– Contains a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) rotor,– Operates on polyphase alternating current (AC) 60-hertz sinusoidal linepower,– Is rated 600 volts or less,– Has 2-, 4-, 6-, or8-pole configuration,– Is rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),– Is built in a three-digit NEMA frame size and is not greater than 500horsepower, and– Is a NEMA Design A, B, or C electric motor (or an IEC equivalent)Current Electric MotorsScope of Coverage26 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• DOE is contemplating applying energyconservation standards to electricmotor types that share similarities with those already covered.• DOE is considering covering the following electric motor types:Expanded Electric MotorsScope of CoverageElectric Motor Type1. Electric motors with customer definedendshields or special flanges7. Immersible2. Electric motors with single or doubleshafts of non-standard dimensions oradditions8. Integral brake3. Electric motors with sleeve bearings 9. Partial or 3/44. Electric motors with non-standard baseor mounting feet10.Totally enclosed, non-ventilated5. Electric motors with thrust bearings11. Vertical hollow-shaft6. Encapsulated electric motors-27 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 1:DOE is open to comment regarding the list ofmotor types it is considering to include in the expandedscope. Should any additional motor types be included inthis list? DOE also seeks comment on the definitionsproposed in the supplementary handout.28 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Motor types DOE is considering tonot coverwith expandedenergy conservation standards for this rulemaking:Exemptions from Scope ExpansionElectric Motor Type1. Totally enclosed air-over (TEAO)6. Liquid cooled2. Component sets7. Single phase3. Inverter-only duty8. Direct current4. Multispeed9. Intermittent duty5. Submersible-29 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 2:DOE seeks comment concerning the list ofmotor types it is not planning to include in the expandedscope of coverage, including definitions for some of thesemotor types in the supplementary handout. Should anyadditional motor types be added to this list of not-coveredmotors? DOE is also interested in comments regardingtest procedures capable of testing these motor types.30 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• DOE is currently working on a test procedure rulemaking in parallel withthis electric motor standards rulemaking.• The new test procedure will look to:– Propose any necessary definitions to help clarify DOE’s potentialexpansion of energy conservationstandards for electric motors.– Propose any necessary modificationsto the current DOE test procedures(not the IEEE or CSA test methodologies) that would facilitate the testingof any electric motors that may havespecial requirements, such as thoseelectric motors that require special setup steps.Test Procedure Modifications31 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 3:DOE requests comment on the additional testprocedure guidance language discussed in thesupplementary handout.Issue 4:DOE is also open to comment regardingalternative approaches to testing these motors, includingother test methodologies or testing standards.32 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Generally, DOE divides covered equipment into classes by:– The type of energy used– Capacity of the equipment, or– Other performance-related features that justify different standardlevels, such as features affecting consumer utility (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))Electric MotorsEquipment Classes and Groups33 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• DOE created 3 equipment class groups by dividing the populationof 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 dividedequipment into classes based on the combination of:– Horsepower rating,– Pole configuration, and– Enclosure typeElectric MotorsEquipment Classes and Groups34 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govElectric MotorsEquipment Classes and GroupsECGMotorDesignHorsepowerRatingPoleConfigurationFrameEnclosureEquipmentClassesINEMA DesignA or B1-500 2, 4, 6, 8Open orEnclosed200IINEMA DesignC1-200 4, 6, 8Open orEnclosed114III Fire Pump 1-500 2, 4, 6, 8Open orEnclosed200• There are 514 discrete equipment classes (or unique motor configurations)across the three equipment class groups (ECG).35 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov2011 Electric Motors ShipmentsECG Motor DesignHorsepowerRatingPoleConfigurationFrameEnclosureUnitsShippedI NEMA Design A 1-5002, 4, 6, 8Open orEnclosed46,512I NEMA Design B 1-5002,4, 6, 8Open orEnclosed4,498,896II NEMA Design C 1-2004, 6, 8Open orEnclosed9,120III Fire Pump1-5002, 4, 6, 8Open orEnclosed5,472Total4,560,000• 2011 electric motor shipments, including motors covered by the plannedexpansion of standards.36 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govTechnology AssessmentType of Motor LossesTechnology OptionsStator I2R LossesIncrease copper wire diameter to maximizeslot fill, reduce end turn length, or increasestator slot sizeRotor I2R LossesReplace rotor aluminum with copper, increaserotor slot size, manipulate rotor slotconfigurationCore LossesSelect lamination with less watts loss/pound,amorphous steels, plastic bonded iron powder,add stack height (i.e., add electrical steel)Friction and Windage LossesOptimize bearing or lubrication selection, orimprove cooling fan designStray Load LossesOptimize selection of rotor/stator slot selection,improve rotor surface machining, optimize airgap37 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govScreening AnalysisImpacts on health or safetyAdverse impacts on equipment utility or availability toconsumersPracticability to manufacture, install, and serviceTechnological feasibilityPurpose• Screen out technology options that DOE will not consider in theengineering analysis for electric motors.Approach• DOE will evaluate each technology option based on the following criteria:38 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govTechnology OptionsScreened Out of the AnalysisTechnology OptionScreening CriteriaAmorphous MetalsTechnological feasibilityPlastic Bonded Iron Powder(PBIP)Technological feasibility39 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 6:DOE invites comment on the technology optionstentatively eliminated during the screening analysis. DOEalso welcomes comment on any proprietary concernsrelevant to the design options considered in the analysis.Issue 5:DOE knows of no current commercial efforts orprototype designs that employPBIP or amorphous steels inelectric motors. Are there any such efforts underway orprototypes under development?What implications, if any,should DOE consider if thesetypes of materials are used inelectric motor designs?40 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleMarket &TechnologyAssessmentScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupsAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisPreliminaryManufacturerImpact AnalysisEffectiveDate41 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering AnalysisDownstream Analyses•Life-Cycle Cost andPayback Period Analysis•National Impact Analysis•Manufacturer ImpactAnalysisManufacturer Selling Price –Efficiency Relationship

Manufacturer Selling PriceEfficiency Level• Purpose‒To evaluate design options that improve efficiency.‒To characterize manufacturer selling price (MSP) versus efficiencyfor higher-efficiency electric motors.42 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:MethodologyDivide covered equipment into classes and identifyrepresentative units.For each representative unit, conduct tests and teardowns ofmotors across the spectrum of efficiency performance.Use software modeling to create designs with efficiency levelsabove the highest efficiencies of the purchased units.Develop candidate standard levels (CSLs) that span the rangeof efficiency from the baseline to the maximum technologicallyfeasible level.Identify materials prices, markups, labor requirements, andother costs for each design torn down and modeled.Scale results to other equipment classes not analyzed.ChooseRepresentativeUnitsConduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed43 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Choose Representative UnitsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE selected representative units for each equipment classgroup.• Analysis for all covered motors was based on these selectedrepresentative units.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzedECGRep. UnitMotor DesignRep. UnitFrameEnclosureRep. UnitHorsepowerRep. Unit PoleConfigurationI(NEMA DesignA & B Motors)NEMA Design BEnclosed543075II(NEMA DesignC Motors)NEMA Design CEnclosed5450III(Fire PumpMotors)NEMA Design BEnclosed54307544 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Choose Representative UnitsChooseRepresentativeUnitsConduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed5HP30HP75HP80.082.084.086.088.090.092.094.096.098.0100.0

AVerage Efficiency Available (%)1to10HP15to50HP60to500HP45 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Choose Representative UnitsChooseRepresentativeUnitsConduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed46 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentChooseRepresentativeUnitsIssue 7:DOE welcomes comment on the representativeunits that it considered in its analysis. DOE is also opento comment on all aspects ofthe representative unitsselected.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed47 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Test and Teardown AnalysisChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE purchased and tested four motors at increasingefficiency levels for each representative unit in equipmentclass group I.* EPACT 1992 energy efficiency levels are equivalentto those in NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-11.** EISA 2007 energy efficiency levels are equivalent to those in NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-12.HorsepowerRatingNameplate Nominal FullLoad EfficiencyEnergy Efficiency Level582.5%Lowest in Catalogs587.5%EPACT1992*589.5%EISA 2007**590.2%Best-in-Market3089.5%Lowest in Catalogs3092.4%EPACT1992*3093.6%EISA 2007**3094.1%Best-in-Market7593.0%Lowest in Catalogs7594.1%EPACT1992*7595.4%EISA 2007**7595.8%Best-in-MarketConduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed48 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Test and Teardown AnalysisChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE conducted teardowns on the tested motors to developa bill of materials, including components and weights.• A sample bill of materials for a NEMA Design B, 4-pole, 5horsepower, enclosed frame motor:* These components were not priced according to weight.ComponentWeight (lbs)Stator Steel (M47)22.1Rotor Steel (M47)12.4Stator Copper Wire10.1Rotor Aluminum2.9Shaft4.8Frame Steel and Mounting Base8.6Bearings*-Aggregate Frame Materials*-Aggregate Hardware*-Aggregate Insulation*-Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed49 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentChooseRepresentativeUnitsIssue 8:DOE requests comment on the approach it usedto develop the materials cost input. Does hardwarematerial, frame material, or insulation impact theefficiency of a motor?Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed50 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Modeling High Efficiency DesignsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE had software modeling conducted.• The modeling used different design options to create newdesigns with incrementally improved efficiency levels abovethe best-in-market teardowns.Design OptionChanges ConsideredStatorChangesIncrease stack length of statorIncrease copper percentage fill of stator slotsChange number of windings around stator slotsRotor ChangesIncrease stack length of rotorChange geometry of rotor teethMaterial ChangesUse copper as the primary conductor in rotorImprove grade of electrical steelConduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed51 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentChooseRepresentativeUnitsIssue 9:DOE seeks comment on the design optioncombinations selected for increasing the efficiency levelsof representative units. DOE would like to requestcomment on any additional design option combinationsthat would increase energy conservation levels.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed52 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Modeling High Efficiency DesignsChooseRepresentativeUnitsExample of Design Option Combinations AnalyzedNEMA Design B, 4-pole, 75-HP, Enclosed FrameParameter Units CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5Efficiency%93.0 94.1 95.4 95.8 96.2 96.5Line VoltageV460 460 460 460 460 460Full Load SpeedRPM1,775 1,785 1,781 1,785 1,788 1,789Full Load TorqueNm299.8 299.8 302.3 300.8 299.6 299.6Steel-M56 M47 M47 M47 M36 M36Rotor ConductorMaterial-Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Copper CopperApproximate Slot Fill%48.0 44.5 70.0 70.0 85.1 83.4Stator Wire GaugeAWG17 12 12 15 14 14Stator Copper Weightlbs77.8 71 82 136 127 160Rotor ConductorWeightlbs31.0 20.7 27.3 38.5 79 84.3Stack LengthIn8.15 10.23 10.58 11.37 12.00 13.00Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzedModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLs53 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Develop CSLsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE identified CSLs that span the range of electric motorefficiencies from the baseline to the maximumtechnologically feasible efficiency.• Factors DOE considered in setting CSLs:Benchmark efficiency levels (e.g. NEMA Premium)NEMA standard nominal efficiencies (e.g. Table 12-10)Commercially available and software modeledefficienciesConduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed54 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Develop CSLsChooseRepresentativeUnitsNEMA Design B 5-Horsepower Rep. UnitCSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5LowestEfficiency(82.5%)Table 12-11(87.5%)Table 12-12(89.5%)Table 12-12+1 band(90.2%)Table 12-12+2 bands(91.0%)Table 12-12+3 bands(91.7%)NEMA Design B 30-Horsepower Rep. UnitCSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5LowestEfficiency(89.5%)Table 12-11(92.4%)Table 12-12(93.6%)Table 12-12+1 band(94.1%)Table 12-12+2 bands(94.5%)Table 12-12+2 bands(94.5%)NEMA Design B 75-Horsepower Rep. UnitCSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5LowestEfficiency(93.0%)Table 12-11(94.1%)Table 12-12(95.4%)Table 12-12+1 band(95.8%)Table 12-12+2 bands(96.2%)Table 12-12+3 bands(96.5%)Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed55 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentChooseRepresentativeUnitsIssue 10:DOE seeks comment on the tentativeCandidate Standard Levels, or CSLs, selected for itsrepresentative units.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed56 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Develop Material Cost InputsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE calculated manufacturer production costs (MPCs) bydisassembling electric motors from multiple manufacturersand creating bills of materials (BOMs).• BOMs describe the product components in detail,including labor hour estimates based on subject matterexpert feedback and a stator winding analysis todetermine whether it was hand or machine wound.• DOE determined materials prices and labor requirementsthrough conversations with manufacturers and industryexperts.• DOE determined markups and labor rates from censusdata, SEC filings, and manufacturer interviews.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed57 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Develop Material Cost InputsChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE then applied manufacturer markups to the MPCs toobtain MSPs.Markup / CostInputMarkupPercentNotesScrap and handling 2.5 %Standard scrap and handling; applied tomaterialsFactory overhead17.5 %Aluminum die-cast rotors; applied to materialsonly18.0 % Copper die-cast rotors ; applied to materials onlyFully-burdened hourlylabor rate$33.46Aggregate cost of domestic and offshore rates;applied to total labor hoursNon-production37.0 %Accounts for SG&A, R&D, warranty/riskprovisions, and profit factor; applied to labor costand materials (5 horsepower rep. unit)45.0 %Accounts for SG&A, R&D, warranty/riskprovisions, and profit factor; applied to labor costand materials (30 and 75 horsepower rep units)Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed58 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentChooseRepresentativeUnitsIssue 11:Due to copper’s large price fluctuations, DOE used a5-year average from 2007-2011 when pricing copper, and 2011prices for all other materials. DOE requests comment on itstentative decision to use a 5-year average price for copper andthe current (2011) materials pricing for all other materials.Issue 12:DOE welcomes comment on its use of a higher nonproduction markup for its 30 and 75 horsepower representativeunits.Issue 13:DOE welcomes comment on its tentative decision touse an aggregate domestic and foreign fully-burdened laborrate. The balance of each rate is based on estimatedpercentages of foreign and domestic manufacturing practices ofU.S. manufacturers.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed59 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnitsEquipment Class Group I• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of the NEMADesign B, 4-pole, 5, 30, and 75 horsepower, enclosed framemotors.Equipment Class Group II• Efficiency levels are derived from the analysis of the NEMADesign C, 4-pole, 5, and 50 horsepower, enclosed frame motors.Equipment Class Group III• Fire pump electric motors have low shipments and low run time.• Efficiency levels for these motors are derived from the analysis ofthe NEMA Design B, 4-pole, 5, 30, and 75 horsepower, enclosedframe motors (equipment class group I).Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed60 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnits• DOE considered two scaling methods:1. Regression equations developed from the efficiencyvalues in NEMA MG1-2009 Table 12-11 and 12-12.2. NEMA band increases based on NEMA MG1-2011“Energy Efficient” and “Premium Efficient” tables as wellas commercially available efficiencies and softwaremodeled efficiencies.• In each scenario, efficiency levels were based on NEMAnominal efficiency values taken from NEMA MG1 Table12-10.• Ultimately, DOE decided to use the second scaling methodof incremental improvements of motor losses.– Based on NEMA “Energy Efficient” (NEMA MG1-2011Tables 12-11 & 20-A) and “Premium Efficient (NEMAMG1-2011 Tables 12-11 & 20-A) values.– Incremental improvements of one NEMA band at higherCSLs.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed61 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnits• For ECG I (NEMA Design A&B):– CSL 0: Lowest-in-scope efficiencies for all equipment classes– CSL 1: NEMA MG1-2011 Tables 12-11 and 20-A for allequipment classes– CSL 2: NEMA MG1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B for allequipment classes– CSL 3: One NEMA band above CSL 2 for all equipment classes– CSL 4: One NEMA band above CSL 3 for all equipment classes– CSL 5*: One NEMA band above CSL 4 for all equipment classes• For ECG II (NEMA Design C):– CSL 0: NEMA MG1-2011 Table 12-11 for all equipment classes– CSL 1: Two NEMA bands above CSL 0 for all equipmentclasses– CSL 2: One NEMA band above CSL 1 for all equipment classes– CSL 3: One NEMA band above CSL 2 for all equipment classes*For equipment classes based on 30-horsepower representative unit,CSL 5 is equal to CSL 4.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed62 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEngineering Analysis:Scale to Equipment Classes Not AnalyzedChooseRepresentativeUnitsConduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed63 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentChooseRepresentativeUnitsIssue 14:DOE welcomes comment on the scalingmethodology it has elected touse to generate efficienciesfor the equipment classes not analyzed.Conduct Testand TeardownAnalysesModel HighEfficiencyDesignsDevelop CSLsDevelopManufacturerSelling PricesScale toEquipmentClasses NotAnalyzed64 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact AnalysisPublic Meeting Agenda1Overview423Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65Test ProcedureLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis7Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses65 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupsAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationMarket &TechnologyAssessment66 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups AnalysisPurpose• Determine consumer motor pricesbased on manufacturer costs, bothfor baseline and higher efficiency equipment• Characterize motor distribution channelsMethod• Identify distribution channels• Estimate the consumer prices byapplying markups to manufacturerselling price67 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Primary Distribution ChannelsOther distribution channels exist (e.g. from manufacturer to OEMs, toend-users through distributors) but are estimated to account for a minorshare of the motor sales (less than one percent).Markups Analysis50%24%23%<1%<1%ManufacturerManufacturerManufacturerManufacturerManufacturerManufacturerContractorOEMDistributorDistributorDistributorOEMContractorEnd userEnd userEnd userEnd userEnd userEnd user<2%68 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups Analysis•Sources:–Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) markups: U.S. Census Bureau,Manufacturing Industry Series data–Distributor markups: U.S. Census Bureau, Business Expenditure Survey–Contractor markups: RS Mean Electrical Cost Data–Sales tax rates: 2011 Sales Tax Clearinghouse•Outputs–Baseline and incremental markups.69 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups Analysis•Markups relate consumer price to cost of goods sold (CGS).•Baseline markups relate price to cost prior to a change in efficiency.–Baseline markups indicate a consumer price that covers all of a retailer’sor distributor’s expenses plus profit.–Direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental and occupancy) are included.•Incremental markups relate the incremental change in consumer priceto the incremental change in CGS.–Some costs remain constant with CGS increases.–Incremental markups cover only expenses that vary with CGS – in thiscase, expenses that increase due to an increase in product efficiency.For example, direct labor costs (salaries, payroll, rental andoccupancy) do not vary with efficiency-induced changes in CGS.–DOE assumes other operating costs and profit scale proportionally withCGS.70 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups Analysis• Weighting the values by the respective shares of each channel yieldsan average overall baseline markup of1.63 and an overall incrementalmarkup of 1.50.Issue 15:DOE requests comments about viable alternativeapproaches or source of information that could be used to developproduct prices.71 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationMarket &TechnologyAssessment72 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use CharacterizationPurpose• Develop annual energy use data for electric motors based on fieldoperating conditionsMethod• DOE developed average energy use values by using typical motoroperating profiles associated to different applications (e.g.,compressors, fans, and pumps)• Developed distributions of electric motor operating hours and motorloading data to account for variability in the field• Include power factor effects on local power circuit• Focus on representative units73 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use Characterization• For electric motors, the energy used by the motors refers to the“energy losses”, the rest is converted to useful mechanical shaft power.• Annual energy use (motors losses and mechanical power), in kWh: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 loadL(%).• Motor annual losses, in kWh: opHLLHPE 

# 746.0))(1(LEElosses 

# 74 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use Characterization• DOE developed a model of motor population based on literaturereview and 123 field assessment data*:–Established distributions across sectors and applications.Distribution by Sector (example):All equipment class groups, 6-20 HP MotorsDistribution by Application (example):Equipment class group 1, 6-20 HP MotorsAirCompressor2.2%Fans26.6%Pumps ,33.0%MaterialHandling6.8%Other31.4%Industry26%Agriculture0.1%Commercial74%*Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data compiled bythe Washington State University Extension Energy Program (WSU) andApplied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with the NewYork State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2011.75 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use Characterization–Determined average values for annual operating hours by application,sector, and horsepower range.Average Operating Hours (Industry sector)Application 1-5 hp 6-20 hp 21-50 hp 51-100 hp 101-200 hp 201-500 hpAir Compressors4,647 5,033 4,578 5,337 6,226 6,349Fans6,193 6,490 5,849 6,975 7,163 8,015Pumps6,028 6,773 6,972 6,869 6,985 6,934Material Handling6,486 6,284 6,518 6,315 7,172 6,116Other6,571 6,274 6,814 7,128 7,337 7,52876 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use Characterization–Developed statistical distributions toaccount for variability in the field.Operating Hours Cumulative Distribution. Example: Equipment class group1, 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 DistributionOperating Hours (Hours)Air compressorsFansPumpsMaterial Handlingand ProcessingOthers77 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use CharacterizationApplicationAverage AnnualLoad in PercentageAir Compressors69.6Fans60.4Pumps68.3Material Handling48.3Other70.5Average motor load (all equipment classes)–Determined average values for motor load by application.78 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use Characterization• Used engineering test data which provides efficiency vs. loadmeasurements for each CSL to develop losses vs. load relationships.Example of Losses (watts) vs. Load (percent) for Representative Unit 1RepresentativeUnit 1CSLOperating Load0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150%NEMA DesignAand B, 5 HP,4 Poles,EnclosedMotor0234.2 282.8 381.4 545.6 791.2 1134.0 1589.71169.6 197.0 260.3 369.0 532.9 761.6 1064.92158.0 183.8 230.6 311.1 437.6 622.8 879.13150.3 167.9 213.2 290.7 405.3 561.6 764.44143.5 167.0 209.2 274.8 368.9 496.2 661.65135.3 152.3 190.1 251.0 337.6 452.1 596.979 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Use CharacterizationRepresentativeUnitDescription hpkilowatt-hours per yearCSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 51NEMA Design B, Tframe, 4 poles,enclosed510,448 9,869 9,691 9,616 9,567 9,48723057,642 55,912 55,021 54,492 54,32675204,834 202,540 198,496 197,697 197,194 196,6043Average Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency LevelRepresentativeUnitDescription hpkilowatt-hours per yearCSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 54NEMA Design C, T-frame, 4 poles,enclosed59,987 9,808 9,738 9,6305 5089,523 88,507 88,119 87,444RepresentativeUnitDescription hpkilowatt-hours per yearCSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 56Fire pump, 4 poles,enclosed519.6 19.2 19.1 19.0 18.87301,601 1,577 1,562 1,558 1,5587597,791 95,934 95,554 95,313 95,033880 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentsIssue 16:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources ofdata that could be used to establish the distribution of motorsacross sectors by horsepower range.Issue 17:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources ofdata that could be used to establish the sector-specificdistribution of motors across applications.Issue 18:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources offield data on motor operating hours and loading that could beused to improve field use characterization in the commercialand agricultural sectors.81 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact AnalysisPublic Meeting Agenda1Overview423Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65Test ProcedureLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis7Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses82 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationMarket &TechnologyAssessment83 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govLife-Cycle Cost and Payback PeriodAnalysisPurpose•Assess the LCC impacts and PBP for the consumers of electric motorsunder the considered efficiency levelsMethod•LCC equals total installed costs plus the sum of annual operating costsdiscounted to a particular base year•Analysis will model the uncertainty and variability of inputs using MonteCarlo approach and probability distributions•Analysis will be implemented in MS Excel® spreadsheet combined withCrystal Ball®84 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govLife-Cycle Cost and Payback PeriodAnalysisBaselineManufacturerCostEngineeringAnalysisStd-LevelManufacturerCostManufacturerMarkupMarkupsAnalysisDistributer &ContractorMarkupsSales TaxEnergy UseCharacterizationEnergyConsumptionEnergyPricesConsumerPriceInstallationCostTotalInstalled CostAnnualEnergy CostRepairCostMaintenanceCostAnnualOperatingExpenseLifetimeDiscountRateEnergy PriceTrendLifetimeOperatingExpensePaybackPeriodLife-CycleCost85 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy Prices• Electricity prices are used to convert energy use to energy costs.• DOE considered regional electricity prices by sector.• DOE uses projections of nationalaverage energy prices for commercialand industrial customers – from the most recent EIA Annual EnergyOutlook (AEO) – to project future energy prices for the LCC analysis.• DOE also surveyed reactive power prices.86 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEnergy PricesCensus RegionIndustry/AgricultureCommercialsector20011$/kWh 2011$/kWhNortheast0.103 0.149Midwest0.084 0.095South0.078 0.100West0.094 0.120Average(weighted)0.087 0.1110.900.951.001.051.101.152008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043

Price Trend (2010=1)ReferenceHighLowAverage Electricity Prices in 2010Industrial Electricity Price TrendsSource:AEO 2011Source:EIA Form 86187 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govLife-Cycle Cost Discount Rates• DOE uses the discount rate to determine the present value of lifetimeoperating expenses.• DOE derived a distribution of discount rates for the commercial andindustrial sectors.– These distributions were developed by estimating the weighted averagecost of capital (WACC) for commercial and industrial consumers of electricmotors.– WACC includes:Financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase equipment.Opportunity cost of any equity to purchase equipment.88 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govInstallation, Maintenance, and RepairCosts• DOE evaluated how installation,maintenance, and repair costs changewith increased efficiency. Data sources included:– RS Means;– Vaughens;– Manufacturer literature; and,– Expert consultants.• Installation costs: DOE assumed no changes in installation costs withincreased efficiency (no changes in motor frame designation withincreased efficiency)• Repair costs : DOE developed a repair cost model based on Vaughensdata.• Maintenance costs: DOE assumed no changes with increased efficiency89 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govImpact of Repair• Impact of repair on efficiency:–One-third of repairs are performed following industry recommendedpractice and do not affect the efficiency of the motor.–Two-thirds of repairs do not follow industry recommended practice: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 occurs after32,000 hours operation, or 5, 16,and 15 years in the industrial,commercial, and agricultural sectors, respectively.–For fire pump electric motors, assumed there is no repair due to thelow operating hours.90 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentsIssue 19:DOE welcomes comments on the current methodused to determine motor repair costs.Issue 20:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources fordetermining the frequency of motor repair depending onequipment class, sector, and application.Issue 21:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources ofdata on motor maintenance costs. Specifically, DOE invitescomment on how amended efficiency requirements may affectmaintenance costs.Issue 22:DOE may consider technology options that couldaffect a motor’s mechanical configuration. DOE invitescomment on how changes in motor mechanical configurationsthat may accompany more efficient motors may affectinstallation costs.91 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govElectric Motors Lifetimes• DOE used information from various literature sources and expert estimatesto establish motor lifetimesin hours by horsepower range.Horsepower RangeMechanical Lifetimehphours1 – 531,5056 – 2032,85021 – 5064,88151 – 10067,819101 – 200106,424201 – 500108,398Motor Mechanical Lifetime by Horsepower Range Across All Sectors• In the LCC, DOE considered a negative correlation between motorlifetime (in years) and operating hours.92 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govElectric Motors LifetimesEstimated Average Lifetime for Equipment Class Group 1HorsepowerRangeWeighted Average LifetimeyrhpIndustrial Commercial Agricultural1-5515136-205141321-5010262551-100102626101-200152929201-50015292993 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govElectric Motors Lifetimes• For motors below 75 horsepower which are most often embedded in alarger equipment, DOE assumed that the motor is retired when it reachedits lifetime or when the equipment of which it is a part reaches its lifetime,whichever happens first.Issue 23:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources ofdata on motor lifetime that could be used to validate DOE’sestimates of motor mechanical lifetime and its method ofestimating lifetimes.94 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govBase-Case Efficiency Distribution• Base case efficiency assignment accounts for the projected market shareof motors at different efficiency levels.–Not all motors considered in the analysis are covered by the current standards,–Not all consumers purchase motors meeting the current minimum standard,–LCC analysis recognizes that consumers already purchasing motors atefficiencies greater than or equal to a prospective standard level are notimpacted by the standard.95 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govLevel NoteLabelShare (%)0Lowest observed efficiency under expandedscopeMinimum Commercially Available 5.5%1EPACT 1992 requirement, with additionalefficiency levels added in NEMA MG1-2011Standard38.4%2EISA 2007 requirement for general purposeelectric motors (subtype I), with additionalefficiency values added in NEMA MG1-2011Premium44.4%3One NEMA nominal efficiency levelimprovement relative to the Premium levelBest-in-Market7.6%4One NEMA nominal efficiency levelimprovement relative to CSL 3Incremental3.0%5One NEMA nominal efficiency levelimprovement relative to CSL 4Maximum Technology1.1%Base-Case Efficiency DistributionEfficiency Distribution for Equipment Class Group 1, 1-5 HP• DOE established the base case efficiency distribution using data frommajor motor manufacturers and distributor’s 2011 catalog (model counts).•DOE used these data to establish efficiency distributions by equipmentclass group and horsepower range.96 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govBase-Case Efficiency DistributionIssue 24:DOE seeks comment on the estimated base casedistribution of equipment efficiencies and on any additionalsources of data.97 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govResultsEfficiencyLevelFull LoadNominalEfficiency%Life-Cycle Cost(2010$)Life-Cycle Cost SavingsPayback PeriodyearsAverageInstalledPrice$AverageEnergyUsekWh/yrAverageOperatingCost$AverageLCC$AverageSavings(2010$)$Customers withAverage MedianNetCost%NetBenefit%082.5 584 10,448 1,006 5,926187.5 588 9,869 969 5,649 16 0.1 5.8 0.4 0.1289.5 651 9,691 963 5,631 25 18.9 26.4 33.7 5.1390.2 665 9,616 960 5,608 45 20.5 67.8 59.0 4.7491.0 909 9,567 960 5,831 -169 89.3 6.5 361.4 28.2591.7 998 9,487 958 5,883 -220 93.3 5.4 162.7 26.9Example of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA Design B,T Frame, 5 HP, Four Poles, Enclosed Motor98 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govResultsEfficiencyLevelFull LoadNominalEfficiency%Life-Cycle Cost(2010$)Life-Cycle Cost SavingsPayback PeriodyearsAverageInstalledPrice$AverageEnergyUsekWh/yrAverageOperatingCost$AverageLCC$AverageSavings(2010$)$Customers withAverage MedianNetCost%NetBenefit%093.0 3,463 204,834 17,168 124,170194.1 3,831 202,540 17,033 123,348 40 0.8 4.5 24.3 2.9295.4 4,296 198,496 16,733 121,510 663 1.4 32.9 6.6 1.5395.8 4,776 197,697 16,687 121,590 597 35.1 47.5 38.3 6.5496.2 6,044 197,194 16,661 122,598 -340 66.9 25.9 162.7 15.5596.5 6,640 196,604 16,631 122,905 -639 73.6 23.7 136.2 16.0Example of LCC and Payback Results for NEMA Design B,T Frame, 75 HP, Four Poles, Enclosed Motor99 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact AnalysisPublic Meeting Agenda1Overview423Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65Test ProcedureLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis7Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses100 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationMarket &TechnologyAssessment101 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact AnalysisShipments AnalysisPurpose• To estimate electric motor shipments in the base case andstandards casesMethod• The shipments model relies on two main sources:– Current and historical shipments data (Market research report,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 and fixedinvestments in equipment including motors.102 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact AnalysisShipments Analysis• DOE uses a shipments model driven by fixed investments inselected equipment020406080100120140160180

Index 2001=100ShipmentsIndexPrivateFixedInvestmentIndexinSelectedEquipmentandStructure103 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact AnalysisShipments Analysis• Shipments index vs. Private fixed investment index:Shipmentsindex(y) = 1.15126·FixInvestindex(y) – 15.17265Where,Shipmentsindex(y)= Shipments(y)/ Shipments(2001)FixInvestindex(y)=FixInvest(y)/ FixInvest(2001)• Shipments projections (in units) based on private fixed investmentprojections using:– 2011 Annual Energy Outlook (2015 – 2035),– Extrapolations (2036 – 2044).104 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact AnalysisShipments Analysis• Annual shipments of covered motors were estimated to total 4.56million units in 2011.Range(hp)2011 Shipments(thousand units)Percentage of Total(%)1-52,68858.56-201,36830.021-503427.551-1001142.5101-200461.0201-500230.5Total4,560100105 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact AnalysisShipments Analysis• Shipments projectionAnnual Shipments(thousand units)Equipment Class Group 2015 2025 2035 2044Cumulative2015-2044NEMA Design A and B 5,072 7,254 9,958 13,005 256,846NEMA Design C 10 15 20 26 515Fire Pump Electric Motors 6 9 12 16 309Total 5,098 7,278 9,990 13,047 257,671106 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact AnalysisShipments Analysis• DOE used a wide range of sources to establish the distributionacross equipment class groups and equipment classes:– Current and historical shipments data (Market research report, inputsfrom interested parties, U.S. Census),– A database of 123 plant assessments*.Issue 25:DOE seeks comment on any additional sources of data onmotor shipments that could be used to validate its shipments modeland estimates.*Database of motor nameplate and field measurement data compiled bythe Washington State University Extension Energy Program (WSU) andApplied Proactive Technologies (APT) under contract with the NewYork State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2011.107 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govBase-Case Shipments ProjectionApproach• Provides the basis to compare projections for higher efficiencylevels (standards case).• Depicts the situation where new or amended standards are notadopted.• Depicts the current and projected mix of electric motor efficienciessold in the absence of new regulation.– DOE assumed no changes in motor shipment efficiencies in theabsence of new regulation (constant and equal to 2011 levels).Issue 26:DOE seeks further comment on its tentative decision to useconstant efficiencies for the analysis period. Specifically, DOE seekscomments on additional sources of data on trends in efficiencyimprovement.108 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govStandards Impacts on MotorShipments• Increased electric motor prices could affect the repair vs. replacedecision that the user makesand could lead to increasing thelongevity of less efficient electric motors and decreasedshipments.• No data to quantitatively estimate the impact of increased motorprices (from higher efficiency standard levels) on shipments.• Used a price elasticity equal to zero as a default.109 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for commentIssue 27:DOE seeks comment on any sources of data that could beused to quantitatively estimate motor price elasticity. DOE also seekscomments on any additional sources of data on the share of motorshipments which are for new installation, and the share of shipmentswhich are for replacement.110 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationMarket &TechnologyAssessment111 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact AnalysisPurpose• For equipment shipped from 2015 to 2044:– To estimate the National Energy Savings (NES) from new andamended energy conservation standards at different efficiencylevels– To estimate the national economic impact electric motor users (orthe Net Present Value (NPV)) from energy conservation standardsat different efficiency levelsMethod• DOE calculates national energy savings by multiplying unitlifetime energy savings by projected shipments and accumulatingthis projected value over the 30 years• DOE calculates the NPV by accumulating the difference eachyear between energy bill savings and increased equipmentexpenditures for all motors shipped over the 30 year period112 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Energy Savings FlowDiagramBase CaseAnnual EnergyConsumption2044Base CaseAnnual EnergyConsumption2017Base CaseAnnual EnergyConsumption2016Base CaseLifetime EnergyConsumption2015ShipmentsAnalysisStandards-Case ProjectionBase-CaseProjectionBase CaseAnnual EnergyConsumption2044Base CaseAnnual EnergyConsumption2017Base CaseAnnual EnergyConsumption2016Standards CaseLifetime EnergyConsumption2015Base-CaseCumulativeEnergy UseStandards-CaseCumulativeEnergy UseSite to PrimaryEnergyConversionNational EnergySavings113 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Consumer Net PresentValue Flow DiagramShipmentsAnalysisStandards-Case ProjectionEnergyCost(2015 –2044)Base-CaseProjectionCumulativeEnergy CostSavingsCumulativeNon EnergyCost IncreaseDiscountRateNet PresentValueRep, Maint,Cost(2015 –2044)Total InstallCost(2015 –2044)EnergyCost(2015 –2044)Rep, Maint,Cost(2015 –2044)Total InstallCost(2015 –2044)114 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govNational Impact Analysis InputsTotal Installed CostScaled across equipment classes based onthe engineering outputs and depending onthe efficiency level.Repair andMaintenance CostsRepair costs are a function of motor configuration and efficiency level. Assumedconstant maintenance costs across efficiency levels.WeightScaled (same method usedfor Total Installed Cost)Annual Energy UseAnnual average values per equipment class andefficiency level calculated based oninputs from the EnergyUse Characterization.Base-CaseEfficienciesShipments-weighted efficiencies basedon base case efficiency distributions aspresented in the LCC analysis.Frozen at the effective year andconstant across the analysis period.Standards-CaseProjectedEfficienciesRoll-up scenario assumed for determining shipment-weighted efficiency for eachstandards case.Frozen at the effective year andconstant across the analysis period.Energy PricesAverage prices and projected energy pricesfrom EIA AEO2011 forecasts (to 2030) andextrapolation to 2044.Electricity Site-toPrimaryConversion FactorsConversion factors based on NEMS corresponding to AEO 2011. Factors vary annuallyand account for generation, distribution, and transmission losses.Discount Rate7 percent and 3 percent real from OMB’s Regulatory Analysis Guideline A-4.Present YearFuture expenses are discounted to the year 2011.National Impact Analysis115 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govTotal Installed Cost• Includes direct equipment costs and shipping costs.• Developed MSP and weight data from engineering analysis for allequipment classes:– At each CSL, for 4 poles, enclosed motors, DOE developed arelationship between MSP (/weight) and horsepower for eachequipment class group, based on the data for the representative units.(power law regressions).y=123.72x0.6702R2=0.9998y=110.95x0.6657R2=0.9995‐5001,0001,5002,0002,5000 20 40 60 80 100 120

MSP (2010$)HorsepowerNEMADesignsAandBElectricMotors(4poles,enclosed)CSL2(FPCSL1)CSL1(FPCSL0)Power(CSL2(FPCSL1))Power(CSL1(FPCSL0))246 8 2 4 6 811.5235 3587.51015202530 1,19340506075 2,270100125150200250300350400450500Open EnclosedCSL2/MSP116 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govTotal Installed Cost• Developed MSP and weight data from engineering analysis for allequipment classes:– At each CSL and horsepower rating, DOE established an index todescribe how MSP (/weight) varies by pole and enclosure usingstatistical estimates derived from a database of motor specifications.CSL2246824681 0.957 0.972 0.987 1.002 0.985 1.000 1.015 1.0301.5 0.939 0.960 0.981 1.002 0.979 1.000 1.021 1.0422 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 1.1097.5 0.796 0.867 0.937 1.008 0.930 1.000 1.070 1.14110 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 1.294100 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 1.328Open EnclCSL2246824681 0.957 0.972 0.987 1.002 0.985 1.000 1.015 1.0301.5 0.939 0.960 0.981 1.002 0.979 1.000 1.021 1.0422 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 1.109OpenEncl117 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for commentIssue 28:DOE seeks comment on its scaled values for MSPs. Inparticular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology for scaling MSPdata from the representative equipment classes to the remainingequipment classes.Issue 29:DOE seeks comment on the scaled values for motorweights. In particular, DOE seeks comments on its methodology forscaling weight data from the representative equipment classes to theremaining equipment classes.118 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• NES Summary (quads) primary energyNational Impact AssessmentMotorSizehpAll hp 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-200 201-500Equipment Class Group 1 – NEMA Designs A & BCSL 10.9720.270 0.284 0.161 0.108 0.078 0.071CSL 24.4140.954 1.211 0.668 0.527 0.410 0.644CSL 37.5271.509 1.980 1.179 0.937 0.831 1.090CSL 410.8362.123 2.855 1.704 1.378 1.265 1.511CSL 513.0052.701 3.201 1.704 1.789 1.680 1.929Equipment Class Group 2 – NEMA Design CCSL 10.0120.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.001-CSL 20.0180.004 0.006 0.003 0.002 0.002-CSL 30.0240.006 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.003-Equipment Class Group 3 – Fire PumpsCSL 10.0030.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001CSL 20.0050.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.001CSL 30.0060.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.002CSL 40.0080.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.002119 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Equipment class group 1 - NPV Summary (billion 2011$)National Impact AssessmentDiscountRate %ALLhp1-5hp6-21hp21-50hp51-100hp101-200hp201-500hpEquipment Class Group 1 – NEMA Designs A & BCSL 135.531.67 1.78 0.94 0.54 0.35 0.2572.320.73 0.76 0.38 0.22 0.13 0.09CSL 2318.423.57 5.52 2.98 2.27 1.68 2.4177.071.39 2.15 1.13 0.90 0.63 0.87CSL 3330.195.65 8.50 4.91 3.71 3.25 4.16711.422.24 3.25 1.80 1.43 1.20 1.50CSL 43-6.63-6.29 -4.67 -1.32 0.57 1.73 3.347-10.37-4.47 -4.37 -1.90 -0.50 0.10 0.77CSL 53-8.63-8.81 -5.92 -1.32 0.64 2.38 4.407-12.71-6.09 -5.26 -1.90 -0.70 0.19 1.05120 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Equipment class group 2 - NPV Summary (billion 2011$)National Impact AssessmentDiscountRate %ALLhp1-5hp6-21hp21-50hp51-100hp101-200hp201-500hpEquipment Class Group 2 – NEMA Designs CCSL 130.050.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00-70.020.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00-CSL 230.01-0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01-7-0.01-0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-CSL 330.02-0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01-7-0.01-0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-121 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov• Equipment class group 3 - NPV Summary (billion 2011$)National Impact AssessmentDiscountRate %ALLhp1-5hp6-21hp21-50hp51-100hp101-200hp201-500hpEquipment Class Group 3 – Fire Pump Electric motorsCSL 13-0.02-0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.007-0.010.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CSL 23-0.03-0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.007-0.01-0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CSL 33-0.10-0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.007-0.05-0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00CSL 43-0.11-0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.007-0.06-0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00122 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMarkups; Energy CharacterizationNational Impact AnalysisPublic Meeting Agenda1Overview423Market & Tech; Screening; Engineering65Test ProcedureLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis7Preliminary MIA; NOPR Analyses123 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:Preliminary AnalysisFrameworkDocumentPreliminaryAnalysisNOPRFinalRuleMarket &TechnologyAssessmentScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupsAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisPreliminaryManufacturerImpact AnalysisEffectiveDate124 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govManufacturer Impact AnalysisOverviewPurpose• To identify the impacts of amended energy conservation standards onmanufacturers.• Key output of MIA is thechange in industry net present value (INPV)due to amended standards.• The MIA consists of three phases:IndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIM*DevelopinterviewguideInterviews&industrywide /subgroupanalysesAssess directemployment,competition,cumulativeburdenPhase 2Phase 3Phase 1125 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govManufacturer Impact AnalysisOverviewPhase 1• DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the industry and identifyimportant issues that require consideration.Phase 2• DOE prepares an industry cash-flow model and an interview questionnaire toguide subsequent discussions.Phase 3• DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of amendedstandards both quantitatively (using the Government Regulatory Impact Model)and qualitatively (impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, employment,and regulatory burden).IndustryprofileDevelopstraw-manGRIM*DevelopinterviewguideInterviews&industrywide /subgroupanalysesAssess directemployment,competition,cumulativeburdenPhase 2Phase 3Phase 1126 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govPreliminary Manufacturer ImpactAnalysis – Key Issues• Increase in equipment repair– Higher efficiency standards may drive consumers to rewind older, lessefficient motors rather than buy new, more expensive electric motors.• Copper rotor motors– With a higher melting point than aluminum, copper can be more dangerousto fabricate. The higher temperatures required for copper rotors alsoincrease energy costs and reduce tooling life during fabrication.– Reduced starting performance (higher inrush current and lower locked-rotortorque).– Significant increases in material and fabrication costs.• Enforcement– Domestic manufacturers may be disproportionately affected by newstandards if DOE does not broadly enforce energy efficiency requirementsfor all covered motors, including imports from foreign countries.127 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 30:DOE requests comment on additional keymanufacturer impact issues.128 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReduction129 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReduction130 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRevised Preliminary AnalysisAnalysisActionEngineering Analysis•Consider comments•Revise using latest dataLife-Cycle Cost andPayback Period Analyses•Consider comments•Revise using latest data•Conduct LCC sub-group analysisNational Impacts Analysis•Consider comments•Revise using latest data131 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReduction132 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govCustomer Subgroup AnalysisPurpose•Analyze the economic impacts of standards on consumers,including subgroups who may be disproportionately impactedcompared with the general user population– A subgroup comprises a subset of the population likely to bedisaffected disproportionately by new or revised energyconservation standards (e.g., small businesses)Method•Extend the LCC analysis to examine the impacts for definedsubgroups•DOE will use inputs specific toeach of the considered consumersubgroups133 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 31:DOE welcomes comment on what, if any, customersubgroups are appropriate in considering standards forelectric motors.134 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReduction135 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEmployment Impact AnalysisPurpose• Assess the overall impact on national employment from the impositionof energy conservation standards at differing levels• Include both direct and indirect employment impacts:– Direct employment impacts are estimated in the manufacturer impactanalysis– Indirect employment impacts result from shifting consumer expendituresamong goods and services ( “substitution effect”) and changing equipmentand energy costs (“income effect”)Method• DOE intends to use the Impact ofSector Energy Technologies (ImSET)model for the evaluation of indirect employment impacts.Issue 30:DOE welcomes feedback on its proposed approach toassessing national employment impacts, both direct and indirect.136 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReduction137 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govUtility Impact AnalysisPurpose• Assess the overall impacts on domestic energy supplies thatwould result from the imposition of standards•Uses the Energy Information Administration’s National EnergyModeling System (NEMS) tailored for DOE’s BuildingTechnologies Program (NEMS-BT)•DOE will model the energy savings impacts from amendedenergy conservation standards using NEMS-BT to generateprojections that deviate from the AEO reference case•Outputs of the utility impact analysis include projections ofelectricity generation, and avoided capacity resulting from acomparison of base and standards casesMethod138 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentsIssue 32:DOE welcomes input from interested parties on its proposeduse of NEMS-BT to conduct the utility impact analysis.139 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReduction140 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govEmissions AnalysisPurpose• To report emission impacts resulting from amended energyconservation standards, including changes in power plantemissions and full fuel cycle emissions.Method• Energy Information Administration’s National Energy ModelingSystem (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 stateswhere emissions are not capped– Existing legislation cap Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), so physical emissionreductions will be nearly zero from any single energy conservationstandard141 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 33:DOE seeks input on its plan to use NEMS-BT to conduct theemissions analysis for the products covered by this rulemaking.142 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReductions143 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govMonetization of Emission Reductions• DOE intends to use the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)values developed by interagency reviews.– SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental damageresulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including but notlimited to agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, propertydamage from rising sea level, and changes in the ecosystem.• At present, the most recent interagency estimates of the potentialglobal benefits resulting from reduced CO2emissions in 2010 are$5.0, $22.5, $37.0, and $68.4 per metric ton in 2011 dollars.– For emission reductions that occur in later years, these values grow inreal terms over time.• DOE will also estimate the potential monetary benefit of reducedNOxemissions resulting from the considered standard levels.144 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 34:DOE requests comments on the approach it plans touse for estimating monetary values associated with emissionsreductions, or any widely-accepted values that could be usedin DOE’s analyses.145 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govSteps in the Standards Rulemaking:NOPRFrameworkDocumentNOPRFinalRuleEffectiveDateEngineeringAnalysisLife-CycleCost &PaybackPeriodAnalysesNationalImpactAnalysisPreliminaryAnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisCustomerSubgroupAnalysisRevisePreliminaryAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysisMonetizationof EmissionReduction146 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRegulatory Impact AnalysisPurpose• To investigate the national impacts of non-regulatory alternativescompared with mandatory energy conservation standards• The non-regulatory alternatives that may be considered include:consumer rebates; consumer tax credits; manufacturer tax credits;voluntary efficiency levels; early replacement; and bulk governmentprocurementMethod• Modify NES spreadsheet model to consider non-regulatory scenarios.• NPV calculated for non-regulatory alternatives in the same way as forthe standard case• Each non-regulatory scenario willdecrease national operating costsand increase equipment prices.• Output will include National Energy Savings and Net Present Value ofthe non-regulatory alternatives147 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.govRequest for CommentIssue 35:DOE invites comments on the ability of voluntaryinitiatives or other non-regulatory efforts by manufacturers toachieve significant energy savings and reasonable costs.148 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov•In all correspondence, please refer tothe Electric Motors rulemaking by:– 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, 2012How to Submit Written CommentsPostal:Courier:Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585-0121Ms. Brenda EdwardsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies Program, Suite 600950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Tel: 202 586-2945149 | Building Technologies Programeere.energy.gov•DOE Appliance Standards–http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/•Electric Motors Rule–http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/electric_motors.html•Electric Motors Test Procedure–http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/electric_motors.htmlRelevant URLs