[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37122-37186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11745]



[[Page 37121]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 118

June 21, 2022

Part III





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 37122]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048]
RIN 1904-AF27


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes 
energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain 
commercial and industrial equipment, including electric motors. In this 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), the Department of Energy 
(DOE) proposes to establish energy conservation standards for 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motors, a category of electric motors, and 
also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed 
standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this NOPR no later than August 22, 2022.
    Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section on or before July 21, 2022.
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday, 
July 26, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, ``Public 
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons 
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, 
by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efabbfbfa2809b809d9cdddfded8bcbbabdfdfdbd7af8a8ac18b808ac1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f0b1f1f02203b203d3c7d7f7e781c1b0b7f7f7b770f2a2a612b202a61282039">[email protected]</span></a>. Include docket number 
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048 in the subject line of the message.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, email, postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department 
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment 
submission process in light of the ongoing corona virus 2019 (``COVID-
19'') pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments 
via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that 
this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards 
Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative 
arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, 
DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment 
submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how 
to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02676c6770657b2c7176636c6663706671427771666d682c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b4e454e594c5205585f4a454f4a594f586b5e584f4441054c445d">[email protected]</span></a> on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#48093838242129262b2d1b3c29262c293a2c3b193d2d3b3c2127263b082d2d662c272d662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ecffefee2e7efe0edebddfaefe0eaeffceafddffbebfdfae7e1e0fdceebeba0eae1eba0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8aebe7efe6e3eba4fde2e3fee3e4edcae2fba4eee5efa4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b5a565e57525a154c53524f52555c7b534a155f545e155c544d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c180b1b1ada8a0afa2a492b5a0afa5a0b3a5b290b4a4b2b5a8aeafb281a4a4efa5aea4efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d5c6d6d71747c737e784e697c73797c6f796e4c68786e697472736e5d787833797278337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain the following 
previously approved standard in part 431 and incorporate by reference 
it into part 429: UL 1004-10 (1004-10:2022), ``Standard for Safety for 
Pool Pump Motors,'' First Edition, approved February 28, 2020, 
including revisions through March 24, 2022.
    Copies of UL 1004-10:2022 can be obtained from: Underwriters 
Laboratories, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (841) 272-8800, 
or go to https://www.ul.com.
    For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.M of this 
document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors
    C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
    A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC 
and PBP)
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation

[[Page 37123]]

    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Scope of Coverage
    2. Market Review
    3. Equipment Classes
    4. Technology Assessment and Options
    a. Motor Topology
    b. Motor Speed
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Representative Units
    b. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    c. Higher Efficiency Levels
    2. Cost Analysis
    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    1. DPPP Motor Applications
    2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample
    3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Pump Motor Input Power
    4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power
    5. Daily Operating Hours
    6. Annual Days of Operation
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Equipment Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    6. Equipment Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    9. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    1. Base-Year Shipments
    2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment Projections
    3. Standards-Case Shipment Projections
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Markup Scenarios
    3. Manufacturer Interviews
    K. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for DPPP Motors 
Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended (EPCA) \2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) Such equipment 
includes electric motors, which include dedicated-purpose pool pump 
motors (``DPPP motors'' or ``DPPPMs'' or ``pool pump motors''), the 
subject of this proposed rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
part C was re-designated part A-1.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes new energy conservation standards for 
DPPP motors. DOE is proposing performance standard for a class of DPPP 
motors and design requirements for certain classes of DPPP motors. The 
proposed performance standard, which are expressed in full-load 
efficiency, and proposed design requirements are shown in Table I.1 of 
this document. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all 
DPPP motors listed in Table I.1 of this NOPR manufactured in, or 
imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after the 
publication of the final rule for this proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 37124]]



            Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated Purpose Pool Pump Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Performance
                                         standard: full-
     Motor total horsepower  (THP)            load        Design requirement: speed   Design requirement: freeze
                                           efficiency            capability                   protection
                                               (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THP < 0.5..............................              69  None......................  None.
0.5 <= THP < 1.15......................  ..............  Variable speed control....  Only for DPPP motors with
                                                                                      freeze protection
                                                                                      controls.
1.15 <= THP <= 5.......................  ..............  Variable speed control....  Only for DPPP motors with
                                                                                      freeze protection
                                                                                      controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also proposes to require that DPPP motors greater than or equal 
to 0.5 THP must be variable speed control DPPP motors.\3\ Finally, for 
DPPP motors greater than or equal to 0.5 THP, DOE proposes that DPPP 
motors with freeze protection controls are to be shipped with the 
freeze protection feature disabled, or with the following default, 
user-adjustable settings: (a) the default dry-bulb air temperature 
setting shall be no greater than 40 [deg]F; (b) the default run time 
setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is 
rechecked); and (c) the default motor speed in freeze protection mode 
shall not be more than half of the maximum operating speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Variable speed control DPPP motor is defined in UL 1004-
10:2020 (incorporated by reference, See 10 CFR 431.482 and 10 CFR 
431.483). In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest 
version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in 
section III.A.1. Throughout this NOPR, a variable speed motor is a 
DPPP motor that meets the definition of ``variable speed control 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor'' as defined by UL 1004-10:2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of DPPP motors, as measured by the 
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period 
(``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment 
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of DPPP motors, 
which is estimated to be 4.5 years (see section IV.F.6 of this 
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards 
(see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is 
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative 
to the baseline product (see section V.B.1.a of this document).

     Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
                        Consumers of DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Average LCC     Simple payback
    Motor total horsepower  (THP)     savings  (2020$)   period  (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THP < 0.5...........................                 3               0.7
0.5 <= THP < 1.15...................                69               2.3
1.15 <= THP <= 5....................               292               0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the 
end of the analysis period (2021-2055). Using a real discount rate of 
7.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of DPPP 
motors in the case without standards is $798 million in 2020$. Under 
the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -
23.7 percent to 12.9 percent, which is approximately -$189.3 million to 
$102.9 million. In order to bring products into compliance with 
standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total 
conversion costs of $46.2 million.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The 
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are 
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2020 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for DPPP motors would save a significant amount of energy. 
Relative to the case without standards, the lifetime energy savings for 
DPPP motors purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated first full year of compliance with the standards (2026-
2055) amount to 0.99 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or 
quads.\6\ This represents a savings of 19.8 percent relative to the 
energy use of these products in the case without amended standards 
(referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy 
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete 
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more 
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer 
benefits of the proposed standards for DPPP motors ranges from $3.0 
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $6.3 billion (at a 3-percent 
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future 
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs 
for DPPP motors purchased in 2026-2055.
    In addition, the proposed standards for DPPP motors are projected 
to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the 
proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over 
the same period as for energy savings) of 36.2 million metric tons 
(``Mt'') \7\ of carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 15.8 thousand tons 
of sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 49.9 thousand tons of nitrogen 
oxides (``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 237.2 thousand tons of methane 
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.4 thousand tons of

[[Page 37125]]

nitrous oxide (``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.1 tons of mercury 
(``Hg'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
    \8\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2021 (``AEO2021''). AEO2021 represents current federal and 
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the 
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for 
further discussion of AEO2021 assumptions that effect air pollutant 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in 
greenhouse gases using four different estimates of the social cost of 
CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of methane 
(``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (``SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of 
greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by 
an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 
(IWG).\9\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L 
of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits 
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 
estimated to be $1.8 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG 
point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of 
considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG 
estimates.\10\ DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, also discussed 
in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of 
the health benefits would be $1.6 billion using a 7-percent discount 
rate, and $3.3 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\11\ DOE is 
currently only monetizing (for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>) 
ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the 
ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from 
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). /
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
    \10\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of 
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach 
prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where 
appropriate and permissible under law
    \11\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
    \12\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of 
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach 
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where 
appropriate and permissible under law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to 
result from the proposed standards for DPPP motors. There are other 
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate 
benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of 
toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security 
benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

 Table I.3--Summary of Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
              Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
                                 [TSL 7]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Billion 2020$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.......................               8.8
Climate Benefits *....................................               1.8
Health Benefits **....................................               3.3
                                                       -----------------
    Total Benefits [dagger]...........................              13.9
                                                       -----------------
    Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs..............               2.5
                                                       -----------------
    Net Benefits......................................              11.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.......................               4.6
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).................               1.8
Health Benefits **....................................               1.6
    Total Benefits[dagger]............................               8.0
                                                       -----------------
    Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs..............               1.5
                                                       -----------------
    Net Benefits......................................               6.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP
  motors shipped in 2026-2055. These results include benefits to
  consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-
  2055.

[[Page 37126]]

 
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
  (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
  discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown
  in Table IV.17 and Table IV.18. Together these represent the global SC-
  GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
  associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
  shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate. See section IV.L of this document for more details. On March
  16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
  the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of
  the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v.
  Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth
  Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect,
  pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
  preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
  ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
  interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
  issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
  reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further
  intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the
  injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and
  permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
  health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
  purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
  cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
  rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the
  benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits 
of emission reduction, all annualized.\13\ The national operating 
savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur 
as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the 
lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. The benefits associated 
with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards 
are also calculated based on the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in 
2026-2055. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases 
are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent 
discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four 
discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document. Table I.4 presents 
the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the 
proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2026, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year 
to 2026. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance 
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards are shown in Table I.4 of this document. The results under 
the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions benefits, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate 
benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the 
standards proposed in this rule is $163.5 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $482.3 million 
in reduced equipment operating costs $104.2 million in GHG climate 
benefits, and $168.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $591.6 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $142.9 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$504.2 million in reduced operating costs, $104.2 million in climate 
benefits, and $188.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $654.4 million per year.

  Table I.4--Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
                                                     [TSL 7]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Million 2020$/year
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low-net-benefits      High-net-benefits
                                                  Primary estimate          estimate              estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............                 504.2                 436.2                 580.9
Climate Benefits *............................                 104.2                  92.6                 115.6
Health Benefits **............................                 188.9                 168.1                 209.3
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger]...................                 797.3                 696.9                 905.9
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs......                 142.9                 110.0                 178.0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits..............................                 654.4                 587.0                 727.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............                 482.3                 424.8                 546.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).........                 104.2                  92.6                 115.6
Health Benefits **............................                 168.7                 152.0                 185.0
    Total Benefits [dagger]...................                 755.2                 669.5                 847.5
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 37127]]

 
    Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs......                 163.5                 129.2                 199.0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits..............................                 591.6                 540.3                 648.5
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055. The Primary, Low
  Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference
  case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
  equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
  Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
  projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and
  Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
  at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-
  GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the
  absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and
  presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is 
described in sections IV.G.2, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to 
technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are 
already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by 
this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that 
the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the 
burdens of the proposed standards.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction, and a 
3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG 
emissions, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for DPPPM is 
$163.5 million per year in increased DPPPM costs, while the estimated 
annual benefits are $482.3 million in reduced equipment operating 
costs, $104.2 million in climate benefits, and $168.7 million in health 
benefits. The net benefit amounts to $591.6 million per year.
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\14\ For 
example, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 
2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to 
reducing GHG emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global 
temperature. As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emissions have 
taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products and 
equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of 
peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy 
infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively 
constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE 
considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different 
covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings 
are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy 
consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in 
distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and 
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), 
and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy 
conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of 
energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, the proposed standards would result in 
estimated national energy savings of 0.99 quad FFC, the equivalent of 
the electricity use of 9.6 million homes in one year. DOE has initially 
determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are 
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). Finally, 
DOE notes that a more detailed discussion of the basis for these 
tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document 
and the accompanying TSD.
    DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as 
potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed 
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential 
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh 
the projected benefits.
    Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 
response to

[[Page 37128]]

this document and related information collected and analyzed during the 
course of this proposed rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy 
efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or 
lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that 
incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
DPPP motors.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment 
includes those electric motors that are DPPP motors, the subject of 
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of 
Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions 
of 42 U.S.C. 6297))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers 
of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis 
for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the 
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations 
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, 
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment 
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for DPPP motors 
appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 
431, subpart Z.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment, including those electric 
motors that are DPPP motors. Any new or amended standard for a covered 
product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not 
adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain 
equipment, including those electric motors that are DPPP motors, if no 
test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE 
determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-
(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, 
DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its 
burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared 
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance 
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the 
standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, 
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
covered products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') 
considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard 
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional 
cost to the consumer of purchasing an equipment complying with an 
energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer 
will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the 
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. 
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 
prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is 
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any 
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics 
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use, if 
DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) consume a 
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment 
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining 
whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard 
for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility 
to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. 
Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must

[[Page 37129]]

include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level 
was established. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    DPPP motors are electric motors, which are defined as machines that 
convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 
431.12. DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and 
energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part 
431 subpart B), but those requirements do not apply to DPPP motors 
subject to the proposed energy conservation standards. DOE has 
separately established test procedure for DPPP motors in 10 CFR part 
431 subpart Z (``Subpart Z'').
    Currently, DPPP motors that would be subject to the proposed energy 
conservation standards are not subject to any Federal energy 
conservation standards or labeling requirements because they do not 
fall within any of the specific classes of electric motors that are 
currently regulated by DOE.\15\ However, DPPP motors are electric 
motors and, therefore, are and have been among the types of industrial 
equipment for which Congress has authorized DOE to establish applicable 
regulations under EPCA without need for DOE to undertake any additional 
prior administrative action. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The current energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.425 
apply to electric motors that satisfy nine criteria listed at 10 CFR 
431.425(g), subject to the exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l). 
The nine criteria are as follows: (1) are single-speed, induction 
motors; (2) are rated for continuous duty (MG1) operation or for 
duty type S1 (IEC); (3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG1) or cage (IEC) 
rotor; (4) operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz 
sinusoidal line power; (5) are rated 600 volts or less; (6) have a 
2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration; (7) are built in a three digit 
or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including 
those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC 
metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric 
equivalent); (8) produce at least one horsepower (0.746 kW) but not 
greater than 500 horsepower (373 kW), and; (9) meet all of the 
performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA 
Design A, B, or C motor or an IEC Design N or H motor. The 
exemptions listed at 10 CFR 431.25(l) are: (1) air-over electric 
motors; (2) component sets of an electric motor; (3) liquid-cooled 
electric motors; (4) submersible electric motors; and (5) inverter-
only electric motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for DPPP Motors
    On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule establishing 
energy conservation standards for DPPPs. 82 FR 5650 (the ``January 2017 
Direct Final Rule'').\16\ Acknowledging comments received in response 
to the direct final rule in support of regulating DPPP motors that 
would serve as replacement motors to the regulated pool pumps, DOE 
published a notice of public meeting on July 3, 2017, and held a public 
meeting on August 10, 2017, to consider potential scope, definitions, 
equipment characteristics, and metrics for pool pump motors. 82 FR 
30845. DOE also requested comment on potential requirements for DPPP 
motors in a request for information (``RFI'') pertaining to test 
procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR 35468 
(July 31, 2017). On August 14, 2018, DOE received a petition submitted 
by a variety of entities (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners'') \17\ 
requesting that DOE issue a direct final rule to establish prescriptive 
standards and a labeling requirement for DPPP motors (``Joint 
Petition'').\18\ The Joint Petitioners sought a compliance date of July 
19, 2021, to align with the standards compliance date for DPPPs. (Id.) 
See also 82 FR 24218 (May 26, 2017). DOE published a notice of the 
Joint Petition and sought comment on whether to proceed with the 
proposal, as well as any data or information that could be used in 
DOE's determination of whether to issue a direct final rule. 83 FR 
45851 (Sept. 11, 2018).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ DOE confirmed the adoption of the standards and the 
effective date and compliance date in a notice published on May 26, 
2017. 82 FR 24218. DOE also established a test procedure for DPPPs. 
82 FR 36858 (August 7, 2017).
    \17\ The Joint Petitioners are: The Association of Pool & Spa 
Professionals, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, 
Arizona Public Service, California Energy Commission, California 
Investor Owned Utilities, Consumer Federation of America, Florida 
Consumer Action Network, Hayward Industries, National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nidec 
Motor Corporation, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Pentair 
Water Pool and Spa, Regal Beloit Corporation, Speck Pumps, Texas 
ROSE (Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy), Waterway Plastics, 
WEG Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems.
    \18\ The Joint Petition is available at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048-0014.
    \19\ Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048, available at: 
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 2018, representatives from APSP, NEMA, Nidec 
Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with DOE to reiterate the need for 
implementation of the Joint Petition. (December 2018 Ex Parte Meeting, 
No. 42 at p. 1) \20\ On February 5, 2019, the Association of Pool & Spa 
Professionals (``APSP''), National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
(``NEMA''), Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, WEG 
Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to present an 
alternative approach to the Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a 
labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (February 2019 Ex Parte Meeting, 
No. 43 at p. 1) \21\ These interested parties specifically requested 
that DOE base the labeling requirement on a newly-available industry 
standard for pool pump motors published on July 1, 2019 (UL 1004-
10:2019, ``Pool Pump Motors''), a design standard that incorporates 
some of the proposals contained in the Joint Petition. (February 2019 
Ex Parte Slides, No. 43 at pp. 9-10) A follow-up memorandum was 
submitted to DOE on March 1, 2019, providing additional information 
related to UL 1004-10:2019. (March 2019 Ex Parte Memo, No. 44) The 
interested parties noted the timelines and costs that would be involved 
in applying a label to the affected pool pump motors and the impacts 
flowing from past labeling efforts. (See generally id. at 1-3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ With respect to each of the ex parte communications noted 
in this document, DOE posted a memorandum submitted by the 
interested party/parties that summarized the issues discussed in the 
relevant meeting as well as its date and attendees, in compliance 
with DOE's Guidance on Ex Parte Communications. 74 FR 52795-52796 
(Oct. 14, 2009). The memorandum of the meeting as well as any 
documents given to DOE employees during the meeting were added to 
the docket as specified in that guidance. See Id. at 74 FR 52796.
    \21\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop the 
test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors. (Docket 
No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0008, which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0008). The 
references are arranged as follows: (commenter, comment docket ID 
number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 5, 2020, in response to the Joint Petition and the 
alternative recommendation presented by several of the Joint 
Petitioners following submission of the Joint Petition, DOE published a 
NOPR proposing to establish a test procedure and an accompanying 
labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 85 FR 62816 (``October 2020 
NOPR''). Specifically, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference UL 
Standard 1004-10:2019 ``Outline of Investigation for Pool Pump Motors'' 
(``UL 1004-10:2019'') pertaining to DPPP definitions and marking 
requirements; require the use of CSA C747-09 (R2014), ``Energy 
Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors'' (``CSA C747-09'') for 
testing the energy efficiency of DPPP motors; require the nameplate of 
a subject DPPP motor (1) to include the full-load efficiency of the 
motor as determined under the proposed test procedure, and (2) if the 
DPPP motor is certified to UL-1004-10:2019, to include the statement, 
``Certified to UL 1004-10:2019''; require

[[Page 37130]]

that catalogs and marketing materials include the full-load efficiency 
of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP 
motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's 
model number) and whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-
10:2019; and require manufacturers to report to DOE the full-load 
efficiency of the subject DPPP motor models as determined pursuant to 
the proposed test procedure. 85 FR 62816, 62820. Additionally, if a 
DPPP motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, DOE proposed to 
require manufacturers to report the total horsepower (``THP'') and 
speed configuration of the motor model as provided on the nameplate 
pursuant to the UL certification. Id.
    On July 29, 2021, DOE published a final rule adopting a test 
procedure for DPPP motors. 86 FR 40765. (``July 2021 Final Rule''). 
Specifically, the test procedure requires to use CSA C747-09 (R2014), 
``Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors'' (``CSA C747-09'') 
for testing the full-load efficiency of DPPP motors and incorporates by 
reference UL 1004-10:2020 ``Standard for Pool Pump Motors'' (``UL 1004-
10:2020'') pertaining to definitions and scope. The new test procedure 
is currently located in 10 CFR part 431, subpart Z (``Subpart Z''). 86 
FR 40765, 40768. DOE did not establish a labeling requirement and 
stated that it intends to address any such labeling and/or energy 
conservation standards requirement in a separate notification. Id.

C. Deviation From Appendix A

    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (``appendix A''), applicable to covered equipment under 10 
CFR 431.4, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in 
appendix A regarding the process for proposing new or amended energy 
conservation standards. Section 6(a)(1) of appendix A states that as 
the first step in any proceeding to consider establishing any energy 
conservation standard, DOE will consider initiating a rulemaking 
proceeding. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department 
determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the 
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue an energy conservation 
standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and 
preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``ANOPR''). DOE is opting to deviate from both provisions by a 
publishing a NOPR without first publishing a document announcing that 
DOE is considering initiating a rulemaking proceeding, a framework 
document and preliminary analysis or an ANOPR. DOE believes that given 
the stakeholder involvement and information received to date regarding 
DPPP motors and potential standards for such equipment, there has been 
already been significant stakeholder engagement on this topic 
including: (1) the RFI on July 31, 2017, which include issues for 
comment relating to dedicated purpose pool pump motors (82 FR 35468); 
(2) the Joint Petition requesting a direct final rule to establish 
standards and a labeling requirement for DPPPMs, on which DOE requested 
comment along with any data or information that could be used in DOE's 
determination of whether to issue a direct final rule (83 FR 45851); 
(3) stakeholders engagement from substantive ex parte communications 
with DOE; and (4) the analysis conducted in support of the energy 
conservation standards for DPPPs, included analyses of DPPP motors 
comparable to the analyses conducted in support of this NOPR (See 82 FR 
5650).
    Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A states that the length of the public 
comment period for NOPR rulemaking documents will vary depending upon 
the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less 
than 75 calendar days. DOE is opting to deviate from this provision in 
providing a 60-day comment period. DOE has tentatively that a 60-day 
comment period should be sufficient for stakeholders to evaluate the 
proposal presented in this NOPR and provide comment given the extensive 
stakeholder involvement to date and the prior opportunities to comment.

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

    This document covers equipment meeting the definition of DPPP motor 
as defined in 10 CFR 431.483 and the scope specified in 10 CFR 
431.481(b). Specifically, the scope covers DPPP motors with a total THP 
of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that 
are polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and 
distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase 
power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid 
electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable electric spa pump motors; (v) 
integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and (vi) integral sand-
filter pool pump motors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ These terms are defined in UL 1004-10:2020, which is 
incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure in Subpart Z of 10 
CFR part 431. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest 
version of the UL standard, UL 1004-10:2022; see discussion in 
section III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such 
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors 
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
    DOE is proposing to establish equipment classes for DPPP motors 
based on THP. DOE is proposing an extra-small-size equipment 
corresponding to motors with a THP less than 0.5 hp, a small-size 
equipment class corresponding to motors with a total horsepower rating 
greater than or equal to 0.5 hp but less than 1.15 hp, and a standard-
size equipment class corresponding to motor with a THP greater than or 
equal to 1.15 hp and less than or equal to 5 hp. Table III.1 provides a 
summary of the proposed equipment classes. See section IV.A.3 for 
further details on the reasoning why DOE determined these equipment 
classes are appropriate and justify having separate standards.

         Table III.1--Proposed Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Motor total  horsepower
              Equipment class                           (Hp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size..........................  THP < 0.5
Small-size................................  0.5 <= THP < 1.15
Standard-size.............................  1.15 <= THP <= 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
    As stated, DOE established subpart Z which specifies that the test 
procedure applies to DPPP motors with a THP of less than or equal to 5, 
but does not apply to: (i) DPPP motors that are polyphase motors 
capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce 
without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power; 
(ii) waterfall pump motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump motors, (iv) 
storable

[[Page 37131]]

electric spa pump motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool pump 
motors, and (vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors). Further, 
Subpart Z incorporates by reference CSA C747-09 as the energy 
efficiency test method for DPPP motors, with ``full-load efficiency'' 
as the metric.
    The test procedure references UL 1004-10:2020 ``Standard for Safety 
for Pool Pump Motors'' for the definitions, (10 CFR 431.483) and 
references CSA C747-09 as the energy efficiency test method for DPPP 
motors (10 CFR 431.484(b)). The test procedure establishes full-load 
efficiency as the metric for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 431.484(b). In this 
NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the latest version of the UL 
standard, UL 1004-10:2022, which added a definition for the term 
``factory default setting''; see discussion in section III.A.1. As 
such, DOE is proposing product-specific enforcement requirements at 10 
CFR 429.134 that require DPPPMs be tested in accordance with UL 1004-
10:2022 to verify variable-speed capability and applicable freeze 
protection design requirements.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A 
to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``Process Rule'').
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 
CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process 
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the 
screening analysis for DPPP motors, particularly the designs DOE 
considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the 
standards considered in this proposed rulemaking. For further details 
on the screening analysis for this proposed rulemaking, see chapter 4 
of the NOPR technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy 
efficiency for DPPP motors, using the design parameters for the most 
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. 
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this proposed rulemaking 
are described in section IV.C.1.c of this proposed rule and in chapter 
5 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to DPPP motors purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the 
proposed standards (2026-2055).\23\ The savings are measured over the 
entire lifetime of DPPP motors purchased in the previous 30-year 
period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as 
the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and 
the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely evolve in the absence of new energy conservation 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each 
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in 
section V.A. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model 
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or 
new standards for DPPP motors. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in 
section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of 
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the 
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national 
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings 
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site 
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. 
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, 
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of 
energy conservation standards.\24\ DOE's approach is based on the 
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by 
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy 
savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy 
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The significance 
of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation 
standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific 
circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\25\ For example, the 
United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As 
part of that agreement, the United States has committed to reducing 
greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to limit the rise in mean 
global temperature.\26\ As such, energy savings that reduce GHG 
emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered 
products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur 
during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on 
the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with 
relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy 
savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and full-fuel-
cycle (``FFC'') effects for different covered products and equipment 
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy 
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production 
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete

[[Page 37132]]

picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
    \26\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021) 
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a 
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative 
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, 
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other 
factors. DOE estimates a combined total of 0.99 quads of FFC energy 
savings at the proposed efficiency levels for DPPP motors. This 
represents 19.8 percent energy savings relative to the no-new-standards 
case energy consumption for DPPP motors. DOE has initially determined 
the energy savings for the trial standard levels considered in this 
proposal are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B).

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has 
addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of 
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine 
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which 
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) 
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other 
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports 
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as 
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of 
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts 
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers 
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of 
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular 
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC 
and PBP analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with 
new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this 
document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.D, DOE uses the NIA 
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards 
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance 
of the products under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to 
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to 
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to 
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy 
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the 
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this 
issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's 
determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public 
regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this 
proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments 
separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES 
section for information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy and water 
conservation

[[Page 37133]]

in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The 
energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide 
improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy 
system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in 
reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's 
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate 
how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, 
as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy 
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how 
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section 
IV.KIV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 
of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section 
IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant 
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the 
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such 
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation 
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the 
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate 
values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation 
standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These 
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period 
contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test.
    In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that 
considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the 
Nation, and the environment, as required under (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). The results of this analysis serve as the 
basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a 
potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results 
of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The 
rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section 
V.B.1.c of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
proposed rulemaking with regard to DPPP motors. Separate subsections 
address each component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this proposed rulemaking: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=76. Additionally, DOE used output from the 
latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') 
Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for 
the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this proposed rulemaking include (1) a determination of 
the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and 
industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments 
information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or 
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of DPPP motors. 
The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the 
following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further 
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
    DPPP motors are a category of electric motor used in DPPP 
applications. In the July 2021 Final Rule, DOE incorporated by 
reference UL 1004-10:2020 and referenced the definitions published in 
that industry standard for DPPP motors. 10 CFR 431.483; 86 FR 40765, 
40768. Section 2.3 of UL 1004-10:2020 defines a DPPP motor as ``an 
electric motor that is single-phase or poly-phase and is designed and/
or marketed for use in dedicated purpose pool pump applications''. DOE 
defines dedicated-purpose pool pump as comprising ``self-priming pool 
filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, waterfall pumps, 
pressure cleaner booster pumps, integral sand-filter pool pumps, 
integral-cartridge filter pool pumps, storable electric spa pumps, and 
rigid electric spa pumps.'' 10 CFR 431.462.
    With regards to scope, 10 CFR 431.481(b) specifies that the 
requirements in subpart Z apply to DPPP motors, as specified in 
paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 1004-10:2020. This scope covers DPPP 
motors with a total THP of less than or equal to 5, but does not apply 
to: (i) DPPP motors that are polyphase motors capable of operating 
without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that 
converts single-phase power to polyphase power; (ii) waterfall pump 
motors; (iii) rigid electric spa pump motors, (iv) storable electric 
spa pump motors; (v) integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and 
(vi) integral sand-filter pool pump motors. Section 1.3 and 1.4 of UL 
1004-10: 2020.
    Since the July 2021 Final Rule, UL 1004-10 has been updated to the 
ANSI approved March 24, 2022 version.\27\ In the 2022 version, DOE 
notes that the only update was the addition of a glossary term for 
``factory default setting'' in section 2.7A, which is defined as ``upon 
application of power

[[Page 37134]]

at initial installation, the program that the unit will run without 
outside interference or change by the user.'' DOE understands that this 
definition does not change the content and requirements of UL 1004-
10:2020, but only provides a clarification regarding factory default 
setting as it applies to the industry standard. As such, in this NOPR, 
DOE proposes to update the reference to the latest version of the 
industry standard, from UL 1004-10:2020 to UL 1004-10:2022, in sections 
10 CFR 431.481(b), 10 CFR 431.482(c)(1) and 10 CFR 431.483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ https://standardscatalog.ul.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=42496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on updating the UL 1004-10 reference from the 
2020 version to the 2022 version.
    The scope of this DPPP motors energy conservation standards 
rulemaking covers motors for use in the following dedicated purpose 
pool pump applications only: (i) self-priming pool filter pumps; (ii) 
non-self-priming pool filter pumps; and (iii) pressure cleaner booster 
pumps. The scope of the pool pump application is consistent with the 
scope of pool pumps that currently have performance-based standards in 
10 CFR 431.465(f). Further, the DPPP motor energy conservation 
standards scope includes both single and polyphase motors (but 
excluding polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and 
distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase 
power to polyphase power) with a total THP of less than or equal to 5.
2. Market Review
    To review the current market of DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs, 
DOE relied on information from the DOE Compliance and Certification 
Database, the California Energy Commission (``CEC''), and the ENERGY 
STAR program.\28\ (``2021 DPPP Database''). These databases included 
the DPPP motor speed-control capabilities, motor THP, and the weighted-
efficiency factor (``WEF'') \29\ of the pump with which the motor was 
certified. The 2021 DPPP database did not contain information related 
to motor efficiency or topology. To supplement the market review, DOE 
also reviewed general motor catalog data from 2020 and created a 
database which contained information regarding motor speed-control, 
topology, THP, motor application, and full-load efficiency (``2020 
Motor Database''). To make the two databases more comparable, DOE 
filtered the 2020 Motor Database to analyze only motors used in DPPP 
applications. DOE notes that DPPPMs are electromechanically similar to 
general motors and use similar methods to improve the efficiency of a 
given motor, therefore DOE tentatively concludes that efficiencies of 
the 2020 Motor Database can be expected to mirror the DPPPM market. See 
section IV.A.4 for further discussion on the DPPP motor technology 
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DOE Compliance Certification Management System. Compliance 
and Certification Database. Information for DPPP products. 
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (last access July 29, 
2021); The California Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database 
System. Information for DPPP products. https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx 
(last access July 29, 2021); Energy Star Program. Information for 
DPPP products. www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-pool-pumps/results (last access July 29, 2021).
    \29\ DOE notes that while the DPPP energy conservation standards 
at 10 CFR 431.465(f) does not contain performance standards for the 
motors used in DPPPs, the DPPP performance metric of weighted energy 
factor (``WEF'') is directly affected by motor efficiency and the 
speed-control of the motor sold with the pump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, DOE analyzed the distribution of motor THP and speed-control 
from the 2021 DPPP Database and compared this to what was observed in 
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. DOE observed that the distribution 
of THP and speed-control has not changed significantly since 2017. 
Because the 2021 DPPP Database did not specifically have information 
related to motor efficiency or topology, DOE compared the motor 
efficiency data used for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule with 
efficiencies found in the 2020 Motor Database. In this review, DOE 
reviewed the range of efficiencies and average catalog efficiency for 
each available motor topology (capacitor-start induction-run 
[``CSIR''], capacitor-start capacitor-run [``CSCR''], permanent-split 
capacitor [``PSC''], etc.) at each THP. DOE found that the range of 
efficiencies and average catalog efficiency did not significantly 
change since 2017. DOE also reviewed the distribution of motor topology 
in the 2020 Motor Database and observed that it has not significantly 
changed since 2017. Accordingly, DOE has based its engineering analysis 
on the analysis conducted for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (see 
section IV.C).
    Separately, DOE also notes that the standard for DPPPs at 10 CFR 
431.465(f) and the CEC performance and prescriptive standards for 
replacement DPPP motors, both having a compliance date starting July 
19, 2021, are expected to influence the overall DPPP motor market. 
Specifically, in the October 2020 NOPR, DOE specified that standard-
size self-priming pool filter pumps which are subject to the DOE DPPP 
energy conservation standards would likely require a variable-speed 
control motor. 85 FR 62816, 62824. Relatedly, the California standard 
for replacement DPPP motors requires all DPPPMs greater than or equal 
to 0.5 THP to be variable-speed. California Code of Federal 
Regulations, Title 20, Section 1605.3(g)(6)(B).
3. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In 
determining whether capacity or another performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. (Id.)
    As discussed previously, DOE is limiting the scope of this energy 
conservation standard to motors used in self-priming pool filter pumps, 
non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and pressure cleaner booster pumps. 
The scope of the pool pump application is consistent with the scope of 
pool pumps that currently have performance-based standards in 10 CFR 
431.465(f). For this energy conservation standards, DOE is dividing the 
DPPP motors into equipment classes based on capacity. The capacity of a 
dedicated-purpose pool pump motor can be expressed in terms of motor 
total horsepower.
    Full load efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower 
(e.g., a 3-horsepower motor is usually more efficient than a \1/4\-
horsepower motor). DOE found that motor efficiency varies with motor 
horsepower in the 2020 Motor Database. Additionally, motor horsepower 
dictates the maximum load that a motor can drive, which means that a 
motor's rated horsepower can influence and limit the end use 
applications where that motor can be used, which in this case is a 
dedicated purpose pool pump. Horsepower is a critical performance 
attribute of a DPPP motor, and since horsepower has a direct 
relationship with full load efficiency and consumer utility, DOE used 
this element as a criterion for distinguishing among equipment classes.
    The motor capacity breakpoints developed in this NOPR align with 
the pump capacity breakpoints recommended by the consensus working 
group established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking

[[Page 37135]]

Federal Advisory Committee (the ``ASRAC DPPP Working 
Group'').<SUP>30 31</SUP> 82 FR 5650, 5669. (Jan. 18, 2017). In the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE finalized equipment classes for 
dedicated purpose pool pumps based on the DPPP Working Group 
recommendation to set the breakpoint between small-size and standard-
size self-priming pool filter pumps at 0.711 hydraulic horsepower 
(``hhp''). 82 FR 5650, 5669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561-570).
    \31\ The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy conservation 
standard rulemaking docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008 contains all 
notices, public comments, public meeting transcripts, and supporting 
documents pertaining to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Joint Petition for DPPP motors, the Joint Petitioners stated 
that the 0.711 hhp threshold in the DPPP standards for self-priming 
pool filter pumps aligns with a 1.15 THP motor threshold (1.15 THP is 
roughly equivalent to 0.711 hhp). Further, the Joint Petition stated 
that almost all motors used in non-self-priming pool filter pumps and 
pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs less than 1.15 THP. (Joint 
Petition, No. 14 at p. 8). Finally, in the October 2020 NOPR, DOE 
described that DPPP motors with a total horsepower greater than or 
equal to 1.15 THP are primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool 
filter pumps (52 percent of DPPP motor applications), while pool pump 
motors below 1.15 THP are typically found in small-size self-priming 
pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and pressure 
cleaner booster pumps (which represent 48 percent of the DPPP motor 
applications).\32\ 85 FR 62816, 62824. Accordingly, because full load 
efficiency generally correlates with motor horsepower, and the distinct 
utility of DPPP motors less than 1.15 THP (almost all are used in non-
self-priming pool filter pumps and pressure cleaner booster pumps) is 
different than of DPPP motors equal to or greater than 1.15 THP 
(primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps), DOE 
proposes to establish small-size and standard-size equipment classes 
based on a 1.15 THP threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Estimate of DPPP motors shipments by DPPP applications for 
2021. 85 FR 62816, 62824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also considered an 
extra-small-size equipment class for non-self-priming pool filter pumps 
less than 0.13 hhp. 82 FR 5650, 5672. This equipment class was 
ultimately merged into the small-size equipment class after DOE 
selected the same efficiency level for both extra-small-size and small-
size non-self-priming pool filter pumps. Id. However, in the context of 
DPPP motors for this rulemaking, DOE notes that the non-self-priming 
pool filter DPPP motors with an hhp of less than 0.13 have different 
maximum efficiency potential than non-self-priming pool filter DPPP 
motors with an hhp of 0.13 or greater. Specifically, Table 5.6.3 in the 
TSD for the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (``January 2017 Direct Final 
Rule TSD'') \33\ did not consider either two-speed or variable speed 
motors for the extra-small-size DPPPP equipment class because both 
these types of motors provide inadequate flow to the pool pump. Because 
the distinct performance potential and utility of DPPP motors with an 
hhp less than 0.13, DOE proposes to include an extra-small-size 
equipment class for DPPP motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The dedicated-purpose pool pumps energy conservation 
standard rulemaking TSD can be found in docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-
0008-0105 (www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop the proposed motor total horsepower tier threshold for 
the extra-small-size equipment class, DOE considered the appropriate 
motor THP threshold that is applicable to the extra-small-size 
equipment class hydraulic horsepower threshold from the January 2017 
Direct Final Rule. Based on pump fundamentals, the power out of the 
drive of the motor (i.e., brake horsepower) is the hydraulic horsepower 
divided by the pump efficiency.\34\ Accordingly, DOE converted the hhp 
to thp by dividing the hydraulic horsepower threshold for the extra-
small-size equipment class (0.13 hhp limit from the January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule) by the hydraulic efficiency for the representative unit 
meeting the 0.13 hhp threshold (23 percent from Table 5.6.4 of the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD). This approximates to a 0.57 THP 
motor horsepower threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydraulic-horsepower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this proposed rulemaking, DOE collected confidential 
DPPP motor shipment data from manufacturers in 2018 through non-
disclosure agreements (``2018 confidential DPPP motor shipments''). In 
reviewing that data, DOE notes there were no DPPP motor shipments at 
0.57 THP; rather, the largest motor THP under 0.57 THP with any 
shipments was 0.5 THP. Accordingly, for this NOPR, DOE proposes to use 
the 0.5 THP threshold instead, and therefore proposes an extra-small-
size equipment class based on the 0.5 THP threshold.
    Table IV.1 provides the summary of the proposed equipment classes 
for DPPP motors.

         Table IV.1--Proposed Equipment Classes for DPPP Motors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Motor total  horsepower
              Equipment class                           (Hp)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size..........................  THP < 0.5
Small-size................................  0.5 <= THP < 1.15
Standard-size.............................  1.15 <= THP <= 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comments on the proposed equipment classes for DPPP 
motors based on motor THP thresholds.
    DOE seeks comment on the proposed equipment classes for DPPP motors 
based on motor THP thresholds.
4. Technology Assessment and Options
    The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a 
preliminary list of technology options that could improve the 
efficiency of DPPP motors. The efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent 
on motor topology, capacity, and operating speed. As previously 
discussed in section IV.A.2 of this document, DOE proposes to delineate 
equipment classes based on motor capacity (i.e., motor horsepower).
a. Motor Topology
    The DPPP motors covered in this proposed rulemaking include both 
alternating current (AC) (single and certain polyphase) induction 
motors and permanent magnet AC motors (also known as Electronically 
Commutated Motors [``ECMs'']).
    In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE noted that the majority 
of the pool filter pumps available on the market come equipped with 
single-phase induction motors, of which the majority are either CSCR or 
PSC motors. 82 FR 5650, 5676. Based on a review of the 2020 Motor 
Database, DOE concludes that a majority of DPPPMs are still CSCR or PSC 
motors. Specifically, single-speed DPPPMs are almost exclusively PSC or 
CSCR and variable-speed motors are primarily ECMs.
    AC induction motors have two core components: a stator and a rotor. 
The components work together to convert electrical energy into 
rotational mechanical energy. This is done by creating a rotating 
magnetic field in the stator, which induces a current flow in the 
rotor. This current flow creates an opposing magnetic field in the 
rotor, which creates rotational forces. Because of the orientation of 
these fields, the rotor field follows the stator field. The rotor is 
connected to a shaft that also rotates and provides the mechanical 
energy output.
    DOE identified six categories of AC induction motors: shaded-pole, 
split-phase, capacitor-start (CSIR and CSCR),

[[Page 37136]]

permanent-split capacitor (PSC), and polyphase. A shaded-pole motor is 
a single-phase induction motor provided with an auxiliary short-
circuited winding or windings displaced in magnetic position from the 
main winding. Shaded-pole motors are typically only used in low-torque 
applications with power requirements less than \1/10\ hp. A split-phase 
motor is a single-phase induction motor equipped with an auxiliary 
winding displaced in magnetic position from, and connected parallel to, 
the main winding. The term ``split-phase motor'' describes a motor to 
be used without impedance other than that offered by the motor windings 
themselves. A CSCR motor is a single-phase motor with different values 
of effective capacitance for the starting and running conditions. A PSC 
motor is another category of single-phase motor that has the same value 
of capacitance for both starting and running conditions. A polyphase 
motor is an electric motor that uses the phase changes of the 
electrical supply to induce a rotational magnetic field and thereby 
supply torque to the rotor.
    Single-phase AC induction motors are inherently less efficient than 
polyphase AC induction motors due to the fundamental differences in how 
the two categories of motors operate. Three-phase power in a polyphase 
motor naturally produces rotation, whereas a single-phase motor 
requires an auxiliary winding with current and voltage out of phase of 
the main winding to produce a net rotating magnetic field. The more 
efficient polyphase AC induction motors require the end user to have 
access to a three-phase power source. Residential power sources are 
typically single-phase.
    Motor topology within the single-phase AC induction motor category 
can also have an impact on motor efficiency. CSCR and PSC motors are 
typically more efficient than CSIR, split-phase, and shaded pole motors 
due to the presence of a run capacitor that remains connected while the 
motors are operating. In the notice of the Joint Petition, the 
recommendation included prohibiting CSIR or split phase motors for 
DPPPMs because (1) this would align with the DPPP standards; (2) this 
requirement would be consistent with certain state standards, and (3) 
these motors are very inefficient. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 7)
    In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE also noted that the pool 
pump market included ECMs and that ECMs are typically used in variable-
speed pool filter pump applications. 82 FR 5650, 5676. Based on a 
review of the 2021 DPPP database, ECMs are becoming more prevalent 
because of the recent standards implemented by the CEC and the January 
2017 Direct Final Rule standards discussed in section IV.A.2 of this 
NOPR.
    ECMs are similar in construction to AC squirrel-cage induction 
motors, but feature a different rotor configuration. Instead of using 
conductive material in the rotor, permanent magnets are integrated into 
the rotor's laminations or fixed to the rotor's outer surface and do 
not need to be energized. The magnetic field established by the 
permanent magnets interacts with the field produced by windings in the 
stator to generate a torque. Because permanent magnet motors do not 
require current to be induced in rotor conductors, overall power 
consumption can be reduced compared to induction motors. Further, 
because permanent magnet motors operate at synchronous speed, they 
require a variable frequency drive to start rotation.
    ECMs can typically achieve higher motor efficiencies than AC 
induction motors with similar capacities. ECMs employ rare-earth metal 
based permanent magnets in the rotor design to establish a magnetic 
field, which avoids the energy consumption observed when energizing an 
electro-magnetic rotor for the operation of AC induction motors. 
Because of the removal of rotor energy losses, ECMs often have higher 
full-load efficiencies than their induction counterparts. ECMs require 
a variable speed drive to operate, which may introduce additional 
losses into the motor system. Even after considering the losses from 
the variable speed drive and control electronics, ECMs are the most 
efficient motor topology currently used in dedicated-purpose pool 
pumps.
b. Motor Speed
    Dedicated-purpose pool pumps are designed to circulate water in 
pool systems to facilitate pool cleaning in addition to water 
filtering, heating, and chlorination. Pool cleaning functions require a 
high flow rate, and subsequently a high motor speed, to provide the 
agitation necessary to stir up large debris so that the filtration 
system can effectively remove any contaminants. Heating functions 
typically require a moderate to high flow rate to ensure that heat is 
dissipated sufficiently and pool system components are not damaged by 
overheating. Water filtration is most effective at low motor speeds, as 
a low flow rate will ensure water bypassing the filter will be 
minimized.
    DPPP motors exist in several configurations with different speed 
capabilities. Single-speed motors can operate at one predefined speed, 
and therefore the associated dedicated-purpose pool pump can provide 
only a single flow rate in any given pool system. Single-speed motors 
are sized to provide the minimum flow rate necessary to facilitate 
effective pool cleaning, and therefore pool pump functions that operate 
most efficiently at lower flow rates are rendered less effective.
    Two-speed motors can operate at two distinct rotational speeds. 
Two-speed motors can be sized so that high flow functions like pool 
cleaning are effective at full speed operation and low flow tasks like 
filtration can be completed at low speed operation. Two-speed pumps can 
be operated by timers or other control systems to run at high speed for 
long enough to complete cleaning functions before switching to low 
speed operation for the duration of the cycle. The ability to operate 
at multiple speeds can provide energy savings when utilized correctly, 
i.e., pool cleaning at high speed and filtration at lower speeds. 
Multi-speed motors function similarly to two-speed motors, but provide 
additional flexibility to maximize the effectiveness of specific pool 
pump functions by allowing users to program pumps to run at more than 
two distinct speeds.
    Variable-speed motors can provide greater energy savings than two-
speed or multi-speed motors due to the ability to program these motors 
to operate at user-defined speed settings. Variable-speed motors used 
in DPPP applications are typically one of two configurations: an AC 
induction motor paired with a variable frequency drive or a permanent 
magnet motor with an integral drive. Permanent magnet variable-speed 
motors offer improved efficiency over AC induction motors due to the 
incorporation of a permanent magnet rotor design in place of the 
powered electro-magnetic rotor design used in AC induction motors. This 
improvement in efficiency is particularly evident at lower speed 
settings, where AC induction motor efficiency drops considerably from 
full speed efficiency.
    DOE seeks comment on the technologies considered for higher DPPP 
motor efficiency. DOE seeks comment on whether other motor topologies 
should be considered as applicable in pool pumps.

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further

[[Page 37137]]

consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
    In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination 
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, 
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis.
    In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered ``improved 
motor efficiency'' as a screened in technology option for the pool pump 
analysis. 82 FR 5650, 5676. This screened-in technology option 
considered motor topology (induction and ECM motor) and speed 
applications (i.e., single-, dual- and variable speed). 82 FR 5650, 
5676. For this DPPP motor analysis, DOE relied on and aligned with the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule analysis where possible. As discussed in 
sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this document, the motor technologies 
applicable to pool pump motors analyzed in the January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule remain relevant and applicable in the current DPPP motor 
market. Therefore, DOE has initially determined that the technology 
options previously considered continue to be technologically feasible 
because they are being used or have previously been used in 
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds 
that the technology options continue to meet the other screening 
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do 
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product 
availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of DPPP motors. There are 
two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of 
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and 
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the 
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency 
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations 
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE 
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the 
equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the 
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are 
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the 
NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge 
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to 
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on 
the market).
    For this analysis, DOE relied on the conclusions from the 
``improved motor efficiency'' design option from the January 2017 
Direct Final Rule. As discussed in sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.4 of this 
document, the motor technologies applicable to pool pump motors 
analyzed in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule remain relevant and 
applicable in the current DPPP motor market. Therefore, in line with 
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered three tiers of motor 
efficiency (low, medium, and high efficiency) and design requirements 
specifically for two-speed, multi-speed motors and variable speed 
motors. This is a combination of the efficiency level and design level 
approach discussed previously. Section 5.6.2 of the January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule TSD discusses that DOE presented the designs and motor 
efficiency assumptions to the DPPP Working Group and subsequently 
refined them to incorporate feedback from the DPPP Working Group.
a. Representative Units
    DOE opted to use representative units for each equipment class, 
consistent with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, for the engineering 
analysis. Representative units exemplify typical capacities in each 
equipment class and are used to quantify the manufacturing costs and 
the energy savings potential for each equipment class.
    Table IV.2 details the DPPP application and associated motor THP of 
each representative unit considered for the analysis. The DPPP 
application (pump type, size and hhp) is consistent with Table 5.4.1 of 
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, except that DOE did not merge 
the extra-small-size and standard-size non self-priming pumps into one 
class for this NOPR. As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document, 
the extra-small-size non-self-priming pool filter DPPP motors have 
different maximum efficiency potential than small- or standard-size 
equipment classes and are therefore analyzed separately.
    The associated motor THP of the representative units are consistent 
with

[[Page 37138]]

the motor THPs provided in Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final 
Rule TSD, with three exceptions: (1) a DPPP motor associated with self-
priming filter pump application at 0.65 hhp (Representative unit 2A) 
was added to represent standard-size DPPP motors that are used in 
small-size self-priming DPPPs as DOE observed motors on the market of 
this size going into small-size self-priming pumps; (2) a DPPP motor 
associated with non-self priming filter pump at 0.87 hhp 
(Representative unit 6) was added to analyze standard-size DPPPMs used 
in non-self-priming filter pump applications to better represent THPs 
observed in the market; and (3) a DPPP motor of 1.125 thp instead of 
1.25 thp associated with pressure cleaner booster pump (Representative 
unit 7) was considered so as to keep this representative unit in the 
small-size equipment class (EC 2), and to better represent the THP 
range of motors in pressure cleaner booster pumps.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Joint Petition noted that almost all motors used in 
pressure cleaner booster pumps have THPs less than 1.15 THP. (Joint 
Petition, No. 14 at p. 8).

        Table IV.2--Representative Units THP and DPPP Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rep. unit      Equipment class       THP        DPPP application *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............  2 (Small)........         0.75  Self-priming Filter
                                                   Pump, Small-size
                                                   (0.44 hhp).
2...............  3 (Standard).....         1.65  Self-priming Filter
                                                   Pump, Standard-size
                                                   (0.95 hhp).
2A..............  3 (Standard).....         1.65  Self-priming Filter
                                                   Pump, Small-size
                                                   (0.65 hhp).
3...............  3 (Standard).....         3.45  Self-priming Filter
                                                   Pump, Standard-size
                                                   (1.88 hhp).
4...............  1 (Extra-small)..         0.22  Non Self-priming
                                                   Filter Pump, Extra-
                                                   Small (0.09 hhp).
5...............  2 (Small)........            1  Non Self-priming
                                                   Filter Pump, Standard-
                                                   size (0.52 hhp).
6...............  3 (Standard).....          1.5  Non Self-priming
                                                   Filter Pump, Standard-
                                                   size (0.87 hhp).
7...............  2 (Small)........        1.125  Pressure Cleaner
                                                   Booster Pump.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the
  hydraulic horsepower. Small-size designates pool pump applications
  with hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size
  designates pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower greater
  than or equal to 0.711 hhp. DOE distinguishes extra-small non self-
  priming filter pumps (less than 0.13 hhp) and standard-size non self-
  priming filter pumps (less than 2.5 hhp and greater than 0.13 hhp).

    DOE seeks comment on the proposed representative units and 
associated DPPP applications used for the engineering analysis.
b. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as 
a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from 
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The 
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics 
of an equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy 
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline 
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. 
Mirroring the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, this DPPP motor analysis 
also considered the least efficient single-speed DPPP motor on the 
market for each representative unit.
c. Higher Efficiency Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE 
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum 
possible efficiency for a given product.
    Once the baseline was established, higher ELs were established by 
substituting with higher full-load efficiency DPPPMs and DPPPMs with 
finer levels of speed control, similar to the January 2017 Direct Final 
Rule. Table IV.3 details the full-load efficiency, or motor topologies 
and speed configurations of each EL for each representative unit. The 
full-load efficiencies and speed configurations being considered are 
consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD.
    As discussed in section IV.A.4.b of this document, DPPPM have 
different functions, including pool cleaning, water filtering, heating, 
freeze protection control and chlorination, that all require different 
flow rates and motor speeds. Therefore, the ability to operate at 
multiple speeds can provide energy savings when utilized correctly. As 
such, there are energy savings that come from controlling the speed of 
the motor with two-speed, multi-speed or variable-speed capabilities. 
Accordingly, DOE proposes to include design requirements of speed 
capability as part of the engineering analysis to capture these added 
energy savings.\36\ These design requirements are consistent with the 
motor speed design options considered in the January 2017 Direct Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Full-load efficiency does not capture the energy saving 
benefits of speed control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as discussed in section IV.A.4.a of this NOPR, the 
efficiency of a DPPP motor is dependent on motor topology. CSCR and PSC 
motors are typically more efficient than CSIR, split-phase, and shaded 
pole motors due to the presence of a run capacitor that remains 
connected while the motors are operating. In the January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule, DOE noted that the majority of the pool filter pumps 
available on the market come equipped with CSCR or PSC motors. 82 FR 
5650, 5676. Accordingly, DOE proposes to include design requirements 
based on motor topology as part of the engineering analysis to capture 
these added energy savings.
    Table IV.3 presents the proposed performance and design 
requirements for the DPPPM efficiency levels. Efficiency levels 0 
through 2 is consistent with Table 5.6.3 of the January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule TSD and represents the low-efficiency, medium-efficiency and 
high-efficiency performance of single-speed DPPPMs. Efficiency levels 3 
through 6 incorporate certain design requirements based on motor speed 
capability and topology.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For the purposes of the analysis, however, DOE did consider 
the full-load efficiencies presented in Table 5.6.3 of the January 
2017 Direct Final Rule TSD for efficiency levels 3 through 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE proposes that EL 3 requires motors that are two-speeds, multi-
speed or variable speed, but with no restrictions on motor topology. EL 
4 requires motors that are two-speeds or multi-speed, but does not 
allow for the low-efficiency motor topologies (split-phase, shaded-
pole, CSIR)--or--requires variable speed motors. EL 5 requires motors 
that are two-speeds or multi-speed, but does not allow for PSC motors 
in addition to the other low-efficiency motor topologies--or--requires 
variable speed motors. Finally,

[[Page 37139]]

EL 6 includes variable speed only, which provides the highest energy 
savings.
    As discussed in section IV.A.3 of this document, efficiency levels 
3-6 do not apply to representative unit 4 because two-speed, multi-
speed and variable speed motors provide inadequate flow to the pool 
pump for the extra-small-size DPPPP equipment class. Further, 
consistent with the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE only considered 
one speed and variable speed motors for representative unit 7 (pressure 
cleaner booster pump application). 82 FR 5650, 5683. Specifically, the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule noted that pressure cleaner booster 
pumps are only operated at one speed, however the pool pump WEF metric 
accounts for energy savings available from adjusting the pump speed to 
reach the minimum required test pressure, i.e., 60 feet, therefore 
allowing variable-speed motor applications. Id. Accordingly, for 
representative unit 7, efficiency levels 3 through 6 would require 
variable-speed motors only.

                                         Table IV.3--Proposed Performance and Design Requirements for DPPPM ELs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Rep.    Motor                        EL0    EL1    EL2
     EC        unit     THP     DPPP application    (%)    (%)    (%)          EL3 *                EL4 *                EL5 *               EL6 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........       4    0.22  Non Self-priming        55     69     76
                               Filter Pump, Extra-
                               Small (0.09 hhp).
2...........       1    0.75  Self-priming Filter     55     69     76  Two-speed--OR--      Two-speed/Multi-     Two-speed/Multi-    Variable speed
2...........       5       1   Pump, Small-size       55     69     76   Multi-speed--OR--    speed, not CSIR,     speed, not CSIR,    only.
                               (0.44 hhp).                               Variable speed.      not shaded pole,     not shaded pole,
                              Non Self-priming                                                not split-phase;--   not split-phase,
                               Filter Pump, Small-                                            OR--Variable speed.  not PSC;--OR--
                               size (0.52 hhp).                                                                    Variable speed.
                                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...........       7   1.125  Pressure Cleaner        55     69     76                                Variable speed only.
                               Booster Pump.
                                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...........       6     1.5  Non Self-priming        55     69     77  Two-speed--OR--      Two-speed/Multi-     Two-speed/Multi-    Variable speed
3...........       2    1.65   Filter Pump (0.87      55     69     77   Multi-speed--OR--    speed, not CSIR,     speed, not CSIR,    only.
3...........      2A    1.65   hhp).                  55     69     77   Variable speed.      not shaded pole,     not shaded pole,
                              Self-priming Filter                                             not split-phase;--   not split-phase,
                               Pump, Standard-                                                OR--Variable speed.  not PSC;--OR--
                               size (0.95 hhp).                                                                    Variable speed.
                              Self-priming Filter
                               Pump, Small-size
                               (0.65 hhp).
3...........       3    3.45  Self-priming Filter     75     79     84
                               Pump, Standard-
                               size (1.88 hhp).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* includes freeze protection control design requirements.

    To determine the motor input power for the energy use analysis in 
section IV.E, DOE also had to determine the hydraulic power of each 
pump. DOE calculated the relationships between flow rate of the pump 
and the total dynamic head required for each system curve. Once these 
relationships were established, the hydraulic power required for each 
curve was calculated using both the head and flow rate. See Section 
5.3.1.3 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. Each efficiency 
level presented has an associated Energy Factor (in Gallons/Watt-hour) 
and Flow (in gallons per minute) used to determine efficiency of the 
pump system. This energy factor considers the performance of the motor 
and the energy savings that come from running the motor at a lower 
speed. For this analysis, all pump performance curves were kept 
consistent with Tables 5.8.1, 5.8.2, 5.8.3 and 5.8.4 of the January 
2017 Direct Final Rule TSD. For more information on how these curves 
were developed, see Section 5.8.2 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule 
TSD.
    DOE seeks comment on the efficiency levels, including the 
associated full load efficiencies and design requirements evaluated in 
the engineering analysis.
2. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing DPPPMs on the 
market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
    <bullet> Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
    <bullet> Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
    <bullet> Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    In the present case, DOE conducted the cost analysis using 
historical price surveys and product teardowns. DOE used feedback from 
manufacturers presented in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule to 
determine the cost of DPPP motors. Specifically, Table 5.7.1 of the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD presents the manufacturer production 
cost (``MPC'') of DPPPMs used in the analysis. However, DOE notes this 
cost data was in terms of 2015$. For this evaluation, DOE updated the 
cost data to be representative of the market in 2020. DOE adjusted the 
2015$ costs to 2020$ using the historical Bureau of Labor Statistics 
Producer Price Index (``PPI'')

[[Page 37140]]

for each product's industry.\38\ Finally, DOE also conducted physical 
teardowns to determine updated DPPP motor controller costs for 
variable-speed motors. DOE did not consider any added costs for the 
freeze protection design requirements, as these requirements do not 
require any additional labor, material, or technology to produce a DPPP 
motor meeting these requirements, and a manufacturer is able to just 
disable the controls to meet the requirement. Further, the January 2017 
Direct Final Rule, which also adopted freeze protection controls as a 
prescriptive standards per the ASRAC DPPP Working Group, did not 
consider any added costs. 82 FR 5650, 5737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Series IDs: Integral motors (<=1 hp): WPU117304, Fractional 
motors (<1 hp): WPU117303, Environmental Controls: WPU1181; 
www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') 
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into 
commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup of 1.37 by 
examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K 
reports filed by publicly-traded manufacturers primarily engaged in 
DPPP manufacturing and whose combined product range includes a variety 
of pool products. Table IV.4 lists the MSPs of each EL for DPPPMs. See 
TSD chapter 5 for additional detail on the engineering analysis and 
complete cost-efficiency results.

                                      Table IV.4--MSPs in 2020$ for DPPPMs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Rep.
      EC         unit     THP    DPPP application    EL0      EL1      EL2      EL3      EL4      EL5      EL6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............        4     0.22  Non Self-priming      $25      $31      $51  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                  Filter Pump,
                                  Extra-Small
                                  (0.09 hhp).
2............        1     0.75  Self-priming           57       71       90      $93     $104     $115     $357
                                  Filter Pump,
                                  Small-size
                                  (0.44 hhp).
2............        5        1  Non Self-priming       52       57       77       79       94      111      357
                                  Filter Pump,
                                  Small-size
                                  (0.52 hhp).
2............        7    1.125  Pressure Cleaner       60       78       98  .......  .......  .......      357
                                  Booster Pump.
3............        6      1.5  Non Self-priming       68       90      108      109      128      149      357
                                  Filter Pump
                                  (0.87 hhp).
3............        2     1.65  Self-priming           75       96      115      116      135      155      357
                                  Filter Pump,
                                  Standard-size
                                  (0.95 hhp).
3............       2A     1.65  Self-priming           75       96      115      116      135      155      357
                                  Filter Pump,
                                  Small-size
                                  (0.65 hhp).
3............        3     3.45  Self-priming          161      201      224      256      271      287      480
                                  Filter Pump,
                                  Standard-size
                                  (1.88 hhp).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on using a 1.37 manufacturer markup for the cost 
analysis.
    DOE seeks comment on the cost methodology and associated costs for 
each of efficiency levels evaluated in the engineering analysis, 
including any associated costs for the proposed freeze protection 
controls requirement.

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC 
and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step 
in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product 
to cover business costs and profit margin.
    DOE identified distribution channels for DPPP motors incorporated 
in pumps (See Table IV.5) and replacement DPPP motors sold alone (See 
Table IV.6). To characterize these channels, DOE referred to 
information collected in support of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, 
which reflects the consensus of the ASRAC DPPP Working Group.

 Table IV.5--Distribution Channels for DPPP Motors Incorporated in Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fraction of
                  Distribution channel                    shipments  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Replacement for an Existing Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/                  75
 uar><h-dar/uar>< DPPP Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-
 arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Wholesaler ><h-dar/uar><u-
 arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Service Contractor
 ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Consumer..
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/                  20
 uar><h-dar/uar>< DPPP Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-
 arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Product Retailer ><h-
 dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Consumer......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     New Installation for a New Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/                   5
 uar><h-dar/uar>< DPPP Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-
 arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Builder ><h-dar/
 uar><u-arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< Consumer..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table IV.6--Distribution Channels for Replacement DPPP Motors Sold Alone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fraction of
                  Distribution channel                      shipments %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/                  25
 uar><h-dar/uar>< Wholesaler ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
 uar><h-dar/uar>< Contractor ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
 uar><h-dar/uar>< End-User..............................
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/                  25
 uar><h-dar/uar>< Wholesaler ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
 uar><h-dar/uar>< Retailer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/
 uar><h-dar/uar>< End-User..............................
DPPP Motor Manufacturer ><h-dar/uar><u-arrow><h-dar/                  50
 uar><h-dar/uar>< Pool Pump Retailer ><h-dar/uar><u-
 arrow><h-dar/uar><h-dar/uar>< End-User.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in 
the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of 
equipment with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are 
applied

[[Page 37141]]

to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency 
models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is 
typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain 
similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended 
standards.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is 
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably 
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a 
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate average baseline and incremental markups DOE relied on 
several sources including: (1) for pool wholesalers, SEC form 10-K from 
Pool Corp; \40\ (2) for pool product retailers, SEC form 10-K from 
several major home improvement centers \41\ and U.S. Census Bureau 2017 
Annual Retail Trade Survey for the miscellaneous store retailers sector 
(NAICS 453),\42\ (3) for pool contractors and pool builders, U.S. 
Census Bureau 2017 Economic Census data for the plumbing, heating and 
air-conditioning contractor sector (NAICS 238220) and all other 
specialty trade contractors sector (NAICS 238990),\43\ (4) for motor 
wholesalers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey for 
the household appliances and electrical and electronic goods merchant 
wholesaler sector (NAICS 4536),\44\ (5) for electrical contractor, 2020 
RSMeans Electrical Cost Data,\45\ (6) for motor retailers, U.S. Census 
Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the building material and 
garden equipment and supplies dealers (NAICS 444), and (7) for pool 
pump retailers, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for 
the miscellaneous store retailers sector (NAICS 453).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 10-K Reports 
for Pool Corp (2010-2017). Available at www.sec.gov/ (Last accessed 
July 26, 2021.)
    \41\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC 10-K Reports 
for Home Depot, Lowe's, Wal-Mart and Costco. Available at 
www.sec.gov/ (Last accessed July 26, 2021.)
    \42\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey, 
available at www.census.gov/retail/index.html (last accessed July 
26, 2021).
    \43\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census Data, available at 
www.census.gov/econ/ (last accessed July 26, 2021).
    \44\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Wholesale Trade Survey, 
available at www.census.gov/awts (last accessed July 26, 2021).
    \45\ RSMeans Electrical Cost Data, available at www.rsmeans.com 
(last accessed July 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the markups, DOE obtained state and local taxes from 
data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\46\ These data represent 
weighted average taxes that include county and city rates. DOE derived 
shipment-weighted average tax values for each region considered in the 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse Inc., State Sales Tax Rates Along 
with Combined Average City and County Rates (2021), available at 
https://thestc.com/STrates.stm (last accessed Feb. 14, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of 
markups for DPPP motors.
    DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels identified for DPPP 
motors and fraction of sales that go through each of these channels.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of DPPP motors at different efficiency levels in 
representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and 
commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential 
associated to each DPPP motor efficiency level. The energy use analysis 
estimates the range of energy use of DPPP motors in the field (i.e., as 
they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides 
the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of 
the potential energy savings and the savings in consumer operating 
costs that could result from adoption of new standards.
1. DPPP Motor Applications
    The annual energy consumption of a pool pump motor is expressed in 
terms of electricity consumption and depends on the DPPP motor 
efficiency level, pool pumping requirement, on the performance of the 
DPPP incorporating the motor, and on the DPPP annual operating hours. 
This electricity consumption is identical to the annual electricity 
consumption of the DPPP incorporating the motor. The pool pump motor 
energy consumption value is the sum of the energy consumption values in 
each mode of operation. Each mode of operation corresponds to a motor 
speed setting. Single-speed motors only have one mode of operation, 
while dual and variable-speed pool pump motors operate at a low- and 
high-speed mode. The unit energy consumption values in each mode are 
calculated based on the DPPP usage, which is calculated based on the 
pool pump system curve that the DPPP is operating on, the pump flow 
rate of the mode, the pump energy factor of the mode (which in turn 
determine the motor input power) \47\ and the annual run time of the 
pool pump spent in that mode. DOE calculated the pool pump annual run 
time based on the application (residential or commercial), the assumed 
pool size, the assumed number of turns per day, and the sample 
application's geographic location, which implies the corresponding pool 
seasons. A typical DPPP application, characterized by the DPPP 
equipment class and hydraulic horsepower (hhp), was associated to each 
representative unit in equipment classes 1, 2, and 3 based on inputs 
from the engineering analysis (See Table IV.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The motor input power is equal to the DPPP flow (gallon per 
minute) divided by the DPPP Energy Factor (gallon per Wh) and 
multiplied by 60 (number of minutes in an hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. DPPP Motor Consumer Sample
    DOE created individual consumer samples for five DPPP motor 
markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; (2) indoor 
swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family community 
swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; and (5) 
outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications. DOE used the samples 
to determine DPPP motor annual energy consumption as well as for 
conducting the LCC and PBP analyses.
    DOE used the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2015 
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 2015) to establish a sample 
of single-family homes that have a swimming pool.<SUP>48 49</SUP> For 
DPPPs used in indoor swimming pools in commercial applications, DOE 
developed a sample using the 2012 Commercial Building Energy 
Consumption Survey (CBECS 2012).\50\ RECS and CBECS include information 
such as the household or building owner demographics and the location 
of the household or building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. 2009 RECS Survey Data. (Last accessed July 27, 
2016.) www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/.
    \49\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. 2015 RECS Survey Data. (Last accessed September 11, 
2018.) www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/.
    \50\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. 2012 CBECS Survey Data. (Last accessed: July 27, 
2016.) www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.cfm?view=microdata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither RECS nor CBECS provide data on community pools or outdoor 
swimming pools in commercial applications, so DOE created samples based 
on other available data. To develop samples for DPPPs in single or 
multi-family communities, DOE used a combination of RECS 2009,\51\ U.S. 
Census 2009 American Home Survey

[[Page 37142]]

Data (2009 AHS),\52\ and 2015 PK Data report.\53\ To develop a sample 
for pool pumps in outdoor commercial swimming pools, DOE used a 
combination of CBECS 2012 and 2015 PK Data report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The earlier version of RECS was used for consistency with 
the year of the AHS survey available with pool ownership 
information.
    \52\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2009 AHS survey data (Last accessed: 
September 13, 2021.) www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2009/
ahs-2009-public-use-file_puf-/2009-ahs-national-puf-microdata.html.
    \53\ PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater Customized 
Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 30, 2016.) www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.7 shows the estimated shares of the five DPPP markets in 
the existing stock based on the afore-mentioned sources. The vast 
majority of DPPPs are used for residential single-family swimming 
pools.

        Table IV.7--Fraction of DPPP Motor Application by Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fraction of
                                                                 DPPP
                        Description                          motor stock
                                                                  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Single Family Swimming Pools...................         95.1
Community Pools (Single Family)............................          0.8
Community Pools (Multi Family).............................          0.4
Commercial Indoor Pools....................................          0.3
Commercial Outdoor Swimming Pools..........................          3.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DPPPs can be installed with either above-ground or in-ground 
swimming pools. DOE established separate sets of consumer samples for 
in-ground pools and above-ground pools by adjusting the original sample 
weights using data on the number of installed in-ground and above-
ground pools gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which 
relied on 2014 data per state provided by APSP.\54\ The consumer 
samples for DPPP motors used in self-priming and pressure cleaner 
booster pumps are drawn from the in-ground pool samples; the consumer 
samples for motors used with non-self-priming pool pumps are obtained 
from the above-ground pool samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose 
pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for more details about the creation 
of the consumer samples and the regional breakdowns.
    DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology to develop consumer 
samples and on the fraction of DPPP motor existing stock across the 
five following markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; 
(2) indoor swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family 
community swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; 
and (5) outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications.
3. Self-Priming and Non-Self-Priming Pool Pump Motor Input Power
    The input power of DPPP motors used in self-priming and non-self-
priming pump applications was calculated based on the flow rates 
(gallons per minute) and typical Energy Factor (gallons per watt hour) 
associated to each representative unit.\55\ At efficiency levels 
corresponding to single-speed and dual-speed motors, the flow and 
Energy Factor values were based on input from the engineering analysis 
(see section IV.C) and provided for each system curve (A, B or C).\56\ 
For each user of self-priming and non-self-priming pool pump in the 
consumer sample, DOE then specified the system curve used (A, B or C) 
by drawing from a probability distribution in which 35 percent of the 
pool pumps follow curve A, 10 percent of the pool pumps follow curve B, 
and the remaining 55 percent follow curve C. The probability 
distribution was based on inputs from the ASRAC DPPP Working Group 
gathered during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The motor input power is equal to the flow (gallon per 
minute) divided by the Energy Factor (gallon per Wh) and multiplied 
by 60 (number of minutes in an hour).
    \56\ When a pump is tested on a system curve (such as curve C), 
any one of the measurements hydraulic power, P (hp), volumetric 
flow, Q (gpm) and total dynamic head, H (feet of water) can be used 
to calculate the other two measurements.
    \57\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose 
pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At efficiency levels corresponding to variable-speed motors, the 
engineering analysis only provided flow and Energy Factor values for 
the high-speed mode on each system curve. For the low-speed mode, DOE 
used data on pool volume and desired time per turnover from the January 
2017 Direct Final Rule technical support document to calculate a 
consumer-specific low-speed flow.\58\ These relied on inputs from 
stakeholders and several other references.<SUP>59 60 61</SUP> DOE then 
used the equation provided by the engineering analysis to calculate the 
Energy Factor as a function of Q for each representative unit on each 
system curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Flow (in gallon per minute) is equal to the pool volume 
(gallon) divided by the desired time per turnover (in minutes).
    \59\ CEE Residential Swimming Pool Initiative, December 2021.
    \60\ California Energy Commission Pool Heater CASE. (Last 
Accessed: July 28, 2016) https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=71754&DocumentContentId=8285.
    \61\ Evaluation of potential best management practices--Pools, 
Spas, and Fountains 2010. (Last Accessed: July 28, 2016) https://calwep.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Pools-Spas-and-Fountains-PBMP-2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Pressure Cleaner Booster Pumps Motor Input Power
    The input power of DPPP motors used in pressure cleaner booster 
pumps was calculated using the relationship between input power and 
flow and the system curve provided by the engineering analysis (see 
section IV.C). To characterize operating flow for each consumer in the 
sample, DOE drew a value from a statistical distribution of flow 
established during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. This 
distribution was developed around the test procedure test point of 10 
gpm of flow rate, as recommended by the ASRAC DPPP Working Group. 
(Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0092 p. 311) For single-speed pressure 
cleaner booster pumps, DOE then calculated the input power using the 
power curve from the engineering analysis. For variable-speed motors 
used in pressure cleaner booster pumps, DOE also calculated the pool 
pump motor input power in a low-speed setting. Based on information 
from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE used a value of 10 gpm to 
characterize the low-speed flow and calculate the hydraulic horsepower 
using the system curve.\62\ Then, DOE calculated the input power using 
the relationship between input power and flow as provided by the 
engineering analysis (see section IV.C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose 
pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Daily Operating Hours
    DOE relied on information gathered during the January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule to develop estimates of pool pump daily operating hours. For 
self-priming and non-self-priming pool filter pumps in residential 
applications, operating hours are calculated uniquely for each consumer 
based on pool size, number of turnovers per day (itself based on 
ambient conditions), and the pump flow rate. In commercial 
applications, DOE assumed these pumps operate 24 hours per day. For 
pressure cleaner booster pumps, operating hours are drawn from a 
distribution which were based on the January 2017 Direct Final 
Rule.\63\ Table IV.8 summarizes the resulting daily

[[Page 37143]]

operating hours during the pool operating season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ For more details see chapter 7 of the dedicated-purpose 
pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at /www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.

       Table IV.8--Weighted-Average Daily Operating Hours by Representative Unit and Pool Pump Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Residential     Commercial
                                                                                     weighted        weighted
      Equipment class        Representative    THP      Pool pump application *    average daily   average daily
                                  unit                                               operating       operating
                                                                                     hours **        hours **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................                4     0.22  Non Self-priming Filter                3.3  ..............
                                                       Pump, Extra-Small (0.09
                                                       hhp).
2.........................                1     0.75  Self-priming Filter Pump,              9.6  ..............
                                                       Small-size (0.44 hhp).
2.........................                5        1  Non Self-priming Filter                8.2  ..............
                                                       Pump, Small-size (0.52
                                                       hhp).
2.........................                7    1.125  Pressure Cleaner Booster               2.5             2.5
                                                       Pump.
3.........................                6      1.5  Non Self-priming Filter                8.2  ..............
                                                       Pump (0.87 hhp).
3.........................                2     1.65  Self-priming Filter Pump,             15.3  ..............
                                                       Standard-size (0.95 hhp).
3.........................               2A     1.65  Self-priming Filter Pump,              9.6  ..............
                                                       Small-size (0.65 hhp).
3.........................                3     3.45  Self-priming Filter Pump,             14.6            22.7
                                                       Standard-size (1.88 hhp).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For self-priming pumps, the terms small and standard refer to the hydraulic horsepower. Small-size designates
  pool pump applications with hydraulic horsepower less than 0.711 hhp, while standard-size designates pool pump
  applications with hydraulic horsepower greater than or equal to 0.711 hhp.
** During the pool operating season.

6. Annual Days of Operation
    DOE calculated the annual unit energy consumption (UEC) by 
multiplying the daily operating hours by the annual days of operation, 
which depends on the number of months of pool operation. For each 
consumer sample, DOE assigned different annual days of operation 
depending on the region in which the DPPP is installed. Table IV.9 
provides the assumptions of pool pump operating season based on 
geographical locations. This assignment was based on information 
collected during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. It is based on 
several sources: DOE's Energy Saver website assumptions \64\ and PK 
Data \65\ that include average pool season length (i.e., operating 
months) by state, along with discussion of the geographic distribution 
of pool operating days by the ASRAC DPPP Working Group. The ASRAC DPPP 
Working Group suggested that although some of the regions had warm 
weather, the pool pumps should still be operating all year long. (See 
Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0094 pp. 191-193)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ DOE Energy Saver. (Last Accessed: April 26, 2016) https://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/heat-pump-swimming-pool-heaters.
    \65\ PK Data. 2015 Swimming Pool and Pool Heater Customized 
Report for LBNL. (Last accessed: April 16, 2016) www.pkdata.com/annual-reports.html/.

     Table IV.9--Pool Pump Operating Season by Geographical Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Avg. months      Pool use
 Location  (states or census divisions)     of pool use       months
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT, ME, NH, RI, VT......................               4        5/1-8/31
MA......................................               4        5/1-8/31
NY......................................               4        5/1-8/31
NJ......................................               4        5/1-8/31
PA......................................               4        5/1-8/31
IL......................................               4        5/1-8/31
IN, OH..................................               4        5/1-8/31
MI......................................               4        5/1-8/31
WI......................................               4        6/1-9/30
IA, MN, ND, SD..........................               4        6/1-9/30
KS, NE..................................               4        6/1-9/30
MO......................................               4        6/1-9/30
VA......................................               7       4/1-10/31
DE, DC, MD..............................               5        5/1-9/30
GA......................................               7       4/1-10/31
NC, SC..................................               7       4/1-10/31
FL......................................              12       1/1-12/31
AL, KY, MS..............................              12       1/1-12/31
TN......................................              12       1/1-12/31
AR, LA, OK..............................              12       1/1-12/31
TX......................................              12       1/1-12/31
CO......................................               4        5/1-8/31
ID, MT, UT, WY..........................               4        5/1-8/31
AZ......................................              12       1/1-12/31
NV, NM..................................              12       1/1-12/31
CA......................................              12       1/1-12/31
OR, WA..................................               3        6/1-8/31
AK......................................               5        5/1-9/30
HI......................................              12       1/1-12/31
WV......................................               5        5/1-9/30

[[Page 37144]]

 
New England.............................               4        5/1-8/31
Middle Atlantic.........................               5        5/1-9/30
East North Central......................               5        5/1-9/30
West North Central......................               4        6/1-9/30
South Atlantic..........................              12       1/1-12/31
East South Central......................              12       1/1-12/31
West South Central......................              12       1/1-12/31
Mountain................................               4        5/1-8/31
Pacific.................................              12       1/1-12/31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use 
analysis for DPPP motors.
    DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology and inputs used to 
estimate DPPP motor energy use. Specifically, DOE seeks feedback on the 
average daily operating hours and annual days of operation used in the 
energy use analysis.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
DPPP motors. The effect of new energy conservation standards on 
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and 
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to 
measure consumer impacts:
    <bullet> The LCC is the total consumer expense of an equipment over 
the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost 
(manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and 
installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, 
maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts 
future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the 
lifetime of the product.
    <bullet> The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of DPPP motors in the absence of new 
or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a 
given efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
consumers. As stated previously, DOE considered five DPPP motor 
markets: (1) single-family homes with a swimming pool; (2) indoor 
swimming pools in commercial applications; (3) single-family community 
swimming pools; (4) multi-family community swimming pools; and (5) 
outdoor swimming pools in commercial applications. As described in 
section IV.E.2, DOE developed consumer samples from various data 
sources including 2009 RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015 RECS and 2012 CBECS. For 
each consumer in the sample, DOE determined the energy consumption for 
the DPPP motor and the appropriate energy price. By developing a 
representative sample of consumers, the analysis captured the 
variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the 
use of DPPP motors.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes MSPs, retailer and distributor markups, 
and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of 
operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and 
price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and 
discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for equipment 
lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached 
to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on 
a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability 
into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input 
values from the probability distributions and DPPP motor user samples. 
For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS 
Excel together with the Crystal Ball\TM\ add-on.\66\ The model 
calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each efficiency level for 
10,000 consumers per simulation run. The analytical results include a 
distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for 
a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case 
efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo 
simulation for a given consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based 
on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than 
or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, 
the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by 
the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase 
more-efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits 
from increasing equipment efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Crystal Ball\TM\ is commercially-available software tool to 
facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating 
probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel, 
available at www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html (last accessed July 6, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of DPPP motors as 
if each were to purchase a new equipment in the expected first full 
year of required compliance with new standards. New standards would 
apply to DPPP motor manufactured 2 years after the date on which any 
new or amended standard is published.\67\ At this time, DOE estimates 
publication of a final rule in the second half of 2023. Therefore, for 
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first full year of 
compliance with any amended standards for DPPP motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ In the Electric Motors Final Rule, DOE was informed by the 
statutorily mandated rulemaking schedule (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(b)) in 
providing a two-year lead time between the finalized rule and 
required compliance. 79 FR 30934, 30944 (May 29, 2014). For the 
purposes of this analysis, DOE is following the same 2-year lead 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.10 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The

[[Page 37145]]

subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the 
spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, 
are contained in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

                    Table IV.10--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Inputs                                                Source/method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost..........................................  Derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel
                                                           markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used
                                                           historical data to derive a price index to project
                                                           equipment costs.
Installation Costs......................................  Baseline installation cost determined using data from
                                                           manufacturer gathered during the January 2017 Direct
                                                           Final Rule.
Annual Energy Use.......................................  The daily energy consumption multiplied by the number
                                                           of operating days per year.
                                                          Variability: Based on the 2009 RECS, 2009 AHS, 2015
                                                           RECS and 2012 CBECS and other data sources.
Energy Prices...........................................  Electricity: Based on EEI data for 2020.
                                                          Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 9
                                                           census divisions for pool pump motors in individual
                                                           single-family homes and 9 census divisions for pool
                                                           pump motors in community and commercial pool pump
                                                           motors.
                                                          Average and marginal prices used for electricity.
Energy Price Trends.....................................  Based on AEO2021 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs............................  Assumed no repair or maintenance on pool pump motors.
Equipment Lifetime......................................  Average: 3.6 to 5 years depending on the DPPP
                                                           applications.
                                                          Variability: Based on Weibull distribution.
Discount Rates..........................................  Residential: approach involves identifying all
                                                           possible debt or asset classes that might be used to
                                                           purchase the considered appliances, or might be
                                                           affected indirectly. Primary data source was the
                                                           Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances.
                                                          Commercial: Calculated as the weighted average cost of
                                                           capital for entities purchasing pool pumps. Primary
                                                           data source was Damodaran Online.
Compliance Date.........................................  2026 (first full year).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in
  chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Equipment Cost
    To calculate consumer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel 
markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used 
different markups for baseline equipment and higher-efficiency 
equipment, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in 
MSP associated with higher-efficiency equipment.
    To project an equipment price trend, DOE derived an inflation-
adjusted index of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for integral and 
fractional horsepower motors and generators manufacturing over the 
period 1967-2020.\68\ For fractional horsepower motors, the data shows 
a slightly downward trend before early 2000s, and then the price index 
increases to a small degree. For integral horsepower motors, the trend 
is mostly flat before early 2000s, and then the price index increases 
slightly. The trend is found to align with the copper and steel 
deflated price indices to some extent, as they are the major material 
used in small electric motors. Given the degree of uncertainty, DOE 
decided to use a constant price assumption as the default price factor 
index to project future DPPP motor prices. For dual-speed DPPP motors, 
however, DOE assumed that the timer control portion of the installation 
cost would be affected by price learning. DOE used PPI data on 
``Automatic environmental control manufacturing'' between 1980 and 2020 
to estimate the historic price trend of the electronic components in 
the timer control.\69\ The regression performed as an exponential trend 
line fit results in an R-square of 0.86, with an annual price decline 
rate of 0.4 percent. For variable-speed DPPP motors, DOE assumed that 
the controls portion of the DPPP motor would be affected by price 
learning. Similarly, DOE used PPI data on ``Semiconductors and related 
device manufacturing'' between 1967 and 2020 to estimate the historic 
price trend of electronic components in the control.\70\ The regression 
performed as an exponential trend line fit results in an R-square of 
0.99, with an annual price decline rate of 6 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Series ID PCU 3353123353121; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \69\ Automatic environmental control manufacturing PPI series 
ID: PCU334512334512; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
    \70\ Semiconductors and related device manufacturing PPI series 
ID: PCU334413334413; www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to project an 
equipment price trend for DPPP motors.
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the equipment. During the January 
2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE simplified the calculation and only 
accounted for the difference of installation cost by efficiency levels. 
For two-speed pumps, DOE included the cost of a timer control and its 
installation where applicable, as recommended by the ASRAC DPPP Working 
Group. During the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE used information 
obtained in the manufacturer interviews to calculate the supplemental 
installation labor costs for two-speed and variable-speed pumps.\71\ 
DOE retained the same estimates for this NOPR as applied to two-speed 
and variable speed DPPP motors.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ For more details see chapter 8 of the dedicated-purpose 
pool pumps direct final rule TSD, at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.
    \72\ Adjusted to $2020 and compliance year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on installation costs estimates used in the LCC 
analysis.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled installation, DOE determined the energy 
consumption for a DPPP motor at different efficiency levels using the 
approach described in section IV.E of this document.
4. Energy Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the 
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change 
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE 
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the DPPP motor 
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices 
for the incremental

[[Page 37146]]

change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels 
considered.
    DOE derived electricity prices in 2020 using data from EEI Typical 
Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-
wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric 
bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by 
investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated 
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and 
Beraki (2018).\73\ For the commercial sector, DOE calculated 
electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and 
Beraki (2019).\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential Electricity 
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169. 
https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
    \74\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Non-residential 
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-
2001203. https://ees.lbl.gov/publications/non-residential-electricity-prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, 
region and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices 
is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and 
energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. For DPPP 
motors, regional weighted-average values for both average and marginal 
prices were calculated for the nine census divisions. Each EEI utility 
in a region was assigned a weight based on the number of consumers it 
serves. Consumer counts were taken from the most recent EIA's Form EAI-
861 data (2020).
    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2020 
average regional energy prices by a projection of annual change in 
national-average residential and commercial energy price in AEO 2021, 
which has an end year of 2050.\75\ To estimate price trends after 2050, 
DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2040 through 
2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for details.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components 
that have failed in an equipment; maintenance costs are associated with 
maintaining the operation of the equipment. Typically, small 
incremental increases in equipment efficiency produce no, or only 
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline 
efficiency equipment. DOE assumed that for maintenance costs, there is 
no change with efficiency level, and therefore DOE did not include 
those costs in the model. In addition, DPPP motors are not repaired and 
DOE assumed no repair costs.
    DOE seeks comment on its decision to not include DPPP motor repair 
and maintenance costs in the LCC analysis.
6. Equipment Lifetime
    For DPPP motors used in residential applications, DOE calculated 
lifetime estimates using DPPP lifetime data and rates of repair from 
the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which estimated that motor 
replacement occurs at the halfway point in a pump's lifetime, but only 
for those DPPPs whose lifetime exceeds the average lifetime for the 
relevant equipment class.\76\ The data allowed DOE to develop a 
survival function, which provides a distribution of lifetime ranging 
from a minimum of 1 year based on warranty covered period, to a maximum 
of 10 years, with a mean value of 5 years for self-priming pumps, to a 
maximum of 8 years, with a mean value of 3.6 years for non-self-priming 
and pressure cleaner booster pumps. These values are applicable to DPPP 
motors in residential applications. For commercial applications, DOE 
adjusted the lifetimes to account for the higher operating hours 
compared to residential applications, resulting in a reduced average 
lifetime of 3.2 years for self-priming pumps and 3.5 years for pressure 
cleaner booster pumps. The resulting shipments-weighted average 
lifetime across all DPPP motor equipment classes is 4.5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ For DPPPs that do not include a repair, the DPPP motor 
lifetime is equal to the DPPP lifetime. For DPPPs that are repaired, 
the DPPP motor lifetime is equal to half of the DPPP lifetime. See 
chapter 8 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule TSD, at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop DPPP 
motor lifetime estimates.
7. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to consumers to estimate the present value of future operating cost 
savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for DPPP motors 
based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
    DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from 
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount 
rates.\77\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the 
lifetime of the equipment, so the appropriate discount rate will 
reflect the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this 
time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC 
analysis, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with 
an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of 
purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt 
and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the 
restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the 
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE 
estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical 
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \78\ 
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016. Using 
the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for 
each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that 
may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE 
assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one 
of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household 
debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, 
is 4.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 
Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 
2013, and 2016. (Last accessed August 8, 2019) 
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from 
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount 
rates.\79\ DOE notes

[[Page 37147]]

that the LCC does not analyze the appliance purchase decision, so the 
implicit discount rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC estimates 
net present value over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate 
discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household 
funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon 
modeled in the LCC, the application of a marginal interest rate 
associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of 
the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance 
their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on 
the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and 
the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. 
DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the 
historical distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish commercial discount rates for the small fraction of 
applications where businesses purchase and use DPPP motors, DOE 
estimated the weighted-average cost of capital using data from 
Damodaran Online.\80\ The weighted-average cost of capital is commonly 
used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a 
typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and 
equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the 
weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. 
DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset pricing model, 
which assumes that the cost of equity for a particular company is 
proportional to the systematic risk faced by that company. The average 
commercial discount rate is 9.8 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Damodaran Online, Data Page: Costs of Capital by Industry 
Sector (2020). (Last accessed February 1, 2021) https://
pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the 
development of consumer discount rates.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected 
distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies under the no-
new-standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy 
conservation standards).
    To estimate the efficiency distribution of DPPP motors for 2026, 
DOE first established efficiency distributions in 2021. Then, as it was 
done in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE projected the 2026 
efficiency distribution by assuming a one percent market shift from 
EL0-EL2 (single-speed DPPP motors) to EL 6 (variable speed DPPP motors) 
where applicable.
    To establish the efficiency distributions of DPPP motors in 2021, 
DOE considered two market segments: (1) DPPP motors incorporated in 
DPPPs and; (2) replacement DPPP motors sold alone.
    For DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs, DOE relied on the 2021 DPPP 
Database that included a total of 345 models of DPPPs with weighted-
energy factor (``WEF'') ratings and on the ELs developed in the January 
2017 Direct Final Rule, to establish the 2021 efficiency distributions 
of DPPPs. DOE also used the scenario of roll-up market response to the 
DPPP standards as presented in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. DOE 
then assumed that the distributions of DPPP motors incorporated in 
DPPPs would be equivalent to the 2021 efficiency distributions of 
DPPPs, based on the equivalent structure of the ELs used in this NOPR 
and in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (See section III.C.1). For 
representative units 4 (i.e., DPPP motors used in non-self-priming 
pumps, extra small) and 7 (i.e., DPPP motors used in pressure cleaner 
booster pumps), the 2021 DPPP Database did not include any information 
specific to these DPPPs. Instead, for these representative units, DOE 
relied on the efficiency distributions provided in the January 2017 
Direct Final Rule and applied a scenario of roll-up market response to 
the upcoming DPPP standards.
    For replacement DPPP motors sold alone, for the U.S., not including 
California \81\, the DPPP standards would have no impact on the DPPP 
motor efficiency distributions. Therefore, to establish the efficiency 
distributions of replacement DPPP motors sold alone, DOE relied on the 
2021 no-new-standards case efficiency distributions provided in the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which reflect efficiency distributions 
prior to the compliance date of the DPPP standards. DOE then assumed 
that the efficiency distributions of replacement DPPP motors sold alone 
would be equivalent to the efficiency distributions of DPPPs, based on 
the equivalent structure of the ELs used in this NOPR and in the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule. For California, DOE applied a scenario 
of roll-up market response to the upcoming California replacement DPPP 
motor standards.\82\ DOE then relied on the market shares of 
replacement DPPP motor sold in California \83\ and in the rest of the 
United-States to establish the nation-wide 2021 replacement DPPP motor 
efficiency distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ DOE considered California separately in light of the July 
2021 California standards for replacement DPPP motors adopted April 
7, 2020 with an effective date July 19, 2021. See Docket #19-AAER-02 
at www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2.
    \82\ For the purposes of this analysis, DOE considered EL1 (for 
motors below 0.5 THP) and EL6 (for motors above 0.5 THP) as 
equivalent levels to the California standards.
    \83\ California Energy Commission, Final Analysis of Efficiency 
Standards for Replacement Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors, 
February 20, 2020. Docket 9-AAER-02 https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=232151 (last accessed August 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected 2026 market shares by EL for the no-new-standards 
case for DPPP motors are shown in Table IV.11 by market segment. See 
chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further information on the derivation of 
the efficiency distributions.

                           Table IV.11--DPPP Motors Incorporated in DPPPs 2026 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Rep.                                              EL0      EL1      EL2      EL3      EL4      EL5      EL6
            Equipment class                Unit     THP           DPPP application           (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size.......................        4     0.22  Non Self-priming Filter Pump,         0       67       33  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                            Extra-Small (0.09 hhp).
Small-size.............................        1     0.75  Self-priming Filter Pump,             0        0       29        1        1        2       66
                                                            Small-size (0.44 hhp).
Small-size.............................        5        1  Non Self-priming Filter Pump,         0        2       47        0        5        4       41
                                                            Small-size (0.52 hhp).
Small-size.............................       *7    1.125  Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump.        0       79       10  .......  .......  .......       11

[[Page 37148]]

 
Standard-size..........................        6      1.5  Non Self-priming Filter Pump          0        2       47        0        5        4       41
                                                            (0.87 hhp).
Standard-size..........................        2     1.65  Self-priming Filter Pump,             0        0        0        0        0        0      100
                                                            Standard-size (0.95 hhp).
Standard-size..........................       2A     1.65  Self-priming Filter Pump,             0        0       29        1        1        2       66
                                                            Small-size (0.65 hhp).
Standard-size..........................        3     3.45  Self-priming Filter Pump,             0        0        0        0        0        0      100
                                                            Standard-size (1.88 hhp).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*For Pressure cleaner booster pumps EL3, EL4, and EL5 are equivalent to EL6.


                          Table IV.12--Replacements DPPP Motors Sold Alone 2026 No-New Standards Case Efficiency Distributions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Rep.                                              EL0      EL1      EL2      EL3      EL4      EL5      EL6
            Equipment Class                unit     THP           DPPP Application           (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)      (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-small-size.......................        4     0.22  Non Self-priming Filter Pump,        29       38       33  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                            Extra-Small (0.09 hhp).
Small-size.............................        1     0.75  Self-priming Filter Pump,            27        9        7        1        1        1       52
                                                            Small-size (0.44 hhp).
Small-size.............................        5        1  Non Self-priming Filter Pump,        23       23       28        2        1        1       23
                                                            Small-size (0.52 hhp).
Small-size.............................       *7    1.125  Pressure Cleaner Booster Pump.        8       50        7  .......  .......  .......       35
Standard-size..........................        6      1.5  Non Self-priming Filter Pump         23       23       28        2        1        1       23
                                                            (0.87 hhp).
Standard-size..........................        2     1.65  Self-priming Filter Pump,            27        9        7        1        1        1       52
                                                            Standard-size (0.95 hhp).
Standard-size..........................       2A     1.65  Self-priming Filter Pump,            27        9        7        1        1        1       52
                                                            Small-size (0.65 hhp).
Standard-size..........................        3     3.45  Self-priming Filter Pump,            27        9        7        1        1        1       52
                                                            Standard-size (1.88 hhp).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*For Pressure cleaner booster pumps EL3, EL4, and EL5 are equivalent to EL6.

    DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop no-new 
standards case efficiency distributions in 2021. DOE seeks feedback on 
the approach used to project no-new standards case efficiency 
distributions in future years.
9. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to 
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, 
compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback 
periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of 
the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not 
recovered in reduced operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The 
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 
discount rates are not needed.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing an equipment complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the 
standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price 
projection for the year in which compliance with the new standards 
would be required.

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual equipment shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential new energy conservation standards on 
energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\84\ The shipments 
model takes an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each 
equipment class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting 
uses equipment shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of 
in-service equipment stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-
service equipment stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES 
and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age 
distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Base-Year Shipments
    DOE estimated motor shipments by DPPP application and considered 
two pump pool motor market segments: (1) DPPP motors incorporated in 
DPPPs and; (2) replacement DPPP motors sold alone. For DPPP motors 
incorporated in DPPPs, DOE used the 2015 shipments of DPPPs by DPPP 
application from January 2017 Direct Final Rule, which were based on 
manufacturer interviews. For replacement DPPP motors sold alone, DOE 
used estimates of historical shipments of DPPPs for the period 2007-
2014 and estimates of repair frequency as provided by ASRAC DPPP 
Working Group during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule to calculate 
the resulting number of failing DPPP motors each year, and 
corresponding replacement DPPP motor shipments by DPPP application.\85\ 
DOE also used 2018 confidential DPPP motor shipments data and 
information from the 2021 DPPP database to estimate market shares of 
motor shipments by total horsepower and distribute DPPP motor shipments 
by representative unit. Table IV.13 provides the breakdown of DPPP 
motor shipments by market segment and representative unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ DOE relied on a repair frequency of 40 percent as provided 
in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. At the end-of-life of a 
motor, the motor is replaced (i.e., pump repair) 40 percent of the 
time, and in the remaining 60 percent of the time, the pump is 
replaced by a new pump. For more details see chapter 9 of the 
dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.

[[Page 37149]]



                                  Table IV.13--2021 Shipments of DPPP Motors by Market Segment and Representative Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            DPPP motors     Replacement
                                                                                                  Represented  THP range   incorporated     DPPP motors
           Equipment class               Rep. unit*          THP             DPPP category           within the  DPPP        in  pumps      sold alone
                                                                                                         category            (thousand       (thousand
                                                                                                                              units)          units)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small-size...........................               1            0.75  Small Size Self-priming   0.5 <= THP < 1.15......           140.6            45.1
Standard-size........................              2A            1.65   Filter Pump.             1.15 <= THP <= 5.......            98.4            31.6
Standard-size........................               2            1.65  Standard Size Self-       1.15 <= THP < 1.7......           157.1           149.8
Standard-size........................               3            3.45   priming Filter Pump.     1.7 <= THP <= 5........           246.1           234.6
Extra-small-size.....................               4            0.22  Non Self-priming Filter   < 0.5..................            47.4            16.2
Small-size...........................               5               1   Pump.                    0.5 <= THP < 1.15......           279.9            95.5
Standard-size........................               6             1.5                            1.15 <= THP <= 5.......           120.0            40.9
Small-size...........................               7           1.125  Pressure Cleaner Booster  0.5 <= THP < 1.15......           139.6            51.9
                                                                        Pump.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Representative unit.

    DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop base 
year shipments and for DPPP motors.
2. No-New-Standards Case Shipment Projections
    DOE projected shipments of DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs and 
shipments of replacement DPPP motors sold alone separately.
    In the no-new-standards case, DOE assumed the total shipments of 
DPPP motors incorporated in DPPPs was equal to the total shipments of 
DPPPs as projected in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, at the trial 
standard level corresponding to the DPPP energy conservation 
standard.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ These were calculated based on input from the ASRAC DPPP 
Working Group and using a repair-replace model, and accounted for 
price elasticity of demand. A price elasticity of -0.02 was used for 
standard-size self-priming pool pumps. For more details see chapter 
9 of the dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule 
TSD, at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the no-new-standards case, for replacement DPPP motors sold 
alone, DOE used the projected shipments of DPPPs and estimates of 
repair frequency to calculate the resulting number of failing motors 
each year and corresponding motor replacement sales. For replacement 
motors sold alone outside of California, DOE relied on repair frequency 
rates as provided in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. For standard-
size self-priming pump motors sold before 2021 and at efficiency levels 
below the DPPP standards, DOE assumed that the repair frequency would 
increase from 40 percent to 60 percent to calculate corresponding 
replacement DPPP motors sales.\87\ For other categories of DPPPs, DOE 
relied on a 40 percent repair frequency as provided in January 2017 
Direct Final Rule. These repair-replace rates were based on inputs from 
the ASRAC DPPP Working Group during the January 2017 Direct Final Rule. 
For replacement motors sold alone in California, DOE projects that with 
the California efficiency standards for replacement DPPP,\88\ the 
repair frequency of standard-size self-priming pump motors will remain 
at its pre-2021 rate of 40 percent as estimated in the January 2017 
Direct Final Rule rather than increasing to 60 percent due to the 
smaller price difference between replacing the entire pump and 
replacing the motor only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE assumed that 
users of standard-size self-priming pool pumps purchased before 
compliance year of the DPPP standards (i.e., 2021), at efficiency 
levels below the upcoming DPPP standards, would seek to increase 
their pump's lifetime by performing an additional repair (i.e., 
cheaper motor replacement with a non-variable speed motor), rather 
than replacing the entire pump with a more efficient and variable 
speed DPPP (due to the DPPP energy conversation standards at 10 CFR 
431.465(f) which correspond to a variable-speed efficiency levels 
for these DPPPs). In the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE 
therefore increased the repair frequency of these DPPPs from 40 
percent to 60 percent. For more details see chapter 9 of the 
dedicated-purpose pool pumps January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, at 
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008-0105.
    \88\ Adopted April 7, 2020 with an effective date July 19, 2021. 
See Docket #19-AAER-02 at www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop no-new 
standards case shipments projections.
3. Standards-Case Shipment Projections
    The standards-case shipments projections account for the effects of 
potential standards on shipments.
    In the standards-cases for which the DPPP motor efficiency level 
are set below the level equivalent to the standard-size self-priming 
DPPP standards, DOE assumed the increase in repair frequency (i.e., 60 
percent) of standard-size self-priming pool pumps, which was accounted 
for in the no-new-standards case, was maintained for all U.S. except 
California (i.e. TSLs 1 to 5 as described in section V.A). In 
California, due to the California efficiency standards for replacement 
DPPP motors,\89\ DOE estimated that the repair frequency of standard-
size self-priming pump motors in California would remain at its pre-
2021 rate of 40 percent in the standards-case, (same as in the no-new-
standards case) because the California standards are at or above the 
levels equivalent to the DPPP standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) for all 
equipment classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Adopted April 7, 2020 with an effective date July 19, 2021. 
See Docket #19-AAER-02 at www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Outside of California, in the standards-cases for which the DPPP 
motor efficiency level of are set at or above the level equivalent to 
the standard-size self-priming DPPP standard, DOE assumed the increase 
in repair for standard-size self-priming pumps would no longer occur 
starting from the compliance year due to the smaller price difference 
between replacing the entire pump and replacing the motor only. Under 
these scenarios, DOE assumed the pumps were repaired 40 percent of the 
time, and new pumps were purchased 60 percent of the time to replace 
failed pumps (i.e. TSLs 6 to 8 as described in section V.A of this 
document).
    In addition, DOE accounted for potential downsizing that could 
occur as a result of setting different efficiency levels that by 
equipment classes and THP. Specifically, DOE assumed that DPPP 
manufacturers may not want to incorporate variable-speed motors in 
DPPPs where the DPPP energy conservation standard level does not 
require the use of a variable speed motor. Therefore, at TSLs requiring 
a variable-speed motor for certain equipment classes with larger THP 
(i.e., TSL 8, 7, 6. See section V.A), DOE

[[Page 37150]]

assumed that DPPP manufacturers might decide to use motors with smaller 
THP for DPPPs that were not required to comply with a DPPP standard 
level corresponding to a variable speed motor efficiency level.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The DPPP energy conservations standards at 10 CFR 
431.465(f) were set based on efficiency levels that correspond to 
variable speed motor DPPPs for standard size self-priming pumps. The 
energy conservations standards for other DPPP categories were set 
based on efficiency levels that correspond to single speed motor 
DPPPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE analyzed DPPP motor THP size as a function of DPPP hydraulic 
horsepower in the 2021 DPPP database to estimate where such downsizing 
may occur. For TSL 8 and 7, DOE did not identify any possible 
downsizing from small-size DPPP motors to extra-small size DPPP motors. 
Furthermore, at TSL 8 and 7, small-size and standard-size DPPP motors 
are both set at EL6. Therefore, DOE did not consider any downsizing at 
these TSLs. At TSL 6, based on a review of the 2021 DPPP database, DOE 
identified representative unit 2A \91\ as a candidate for 
downsizing.\92\ Therefore at TSL 6, DOE assumed that the majority of 
shipments of standard-size DPPP motors used in small-size self-priming 
pool pumps (80 percent) would downsize to small-size DPPP motors. For 
standard-size DPPP motors used in standard size non-self priming pumps 
(i.e., representative unit 5), DOE did not identify DPPP models with 
oversized DPPP motors in its 2021 DPPP database and did not assume any 
downsizing.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Representative unit 2A represents standard-size DPPP motors 
(i.e., at or above 1.15THP) used in small-size self-priming pool 
filter pumps.
    \92\ DOE found that all DPPP models with standard-size DPPP 
motors in the database had a hydraulic horsepower less or equal to 
the hydraulic horsepower of DPPP models with small-size DPPP motors.
    \93\ The majority of non-self priming pool filter pump models 
with standards-size DPPP motors had a hydraulic horsepower greater 
than non-self priming pool filter pump models with small-size DPPP 
motors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for more detail on the shipments 
analysis.
    DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop the 
different standards case shipments projections. Specifically, at TSL 6. 
DOE requests information and feedback on the estimated fraction of 
standard-size DPPP motors used in small self-priming pool filter pumps 
and in non-self-priming pool filter pumps that will downsize to small-
size DPPP motors.

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the national energy savings (``NES'') and the NPV 
from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings that 
would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific 
efficiency levels.\94\ (``Consumer'' in this context refers to 
consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 
NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on projections 
of annual product shipments, along with the annual energy consumption 
and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For 
the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost 
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime 
of DPPP motors sold from 2026 through 2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with 
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE 
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels 
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards 
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.
    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values 
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV.14 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows 
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details.

   Table IV.14--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                     model.
Compliance Date of Standard.......  2026.
Efficiency Trends.................  No-new-standards case:
                                    Standards cases:
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                     function of energy use at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.....  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                     function of cost at each TSL.
                                     Incorporates a component-based
                                     projection of future product prices
                                     based on historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.......  Annual weighted-average values as a
                                     function of the annual energy
                                     consumption per unit and energy
                                     prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per     Annual values do not change with
 Unit.                               efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends...............  AEO2021 projections to 2050 and
                                     extrapolation thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC      A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                         based on AEO 2021.
Discount Rate.....................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year......................  2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an 
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which 
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 
considered equipment classes for the first full year of anticipated 
compliance with an amended or new standard. To project the trend in 
efficiency absent amended standards for DPPP motors over the entire 
shipments projection period, DOE relied on the same approach described 
in section IV.F.8

[[Page 37151]]

and shifted 1 percent per year of the market share in the single-speed 
levels to the variable-speed efficiency levels. The approach is further 
described in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective (2026). In this scenario, the market 
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the 
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard 
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
2. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products between each 
potential standards case (``TSL'') and the case with no new or amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy 
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product 
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). 
DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy 
consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher 
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings 
based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and 
savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to 
generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from 
AEO2021. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year 
over the timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a 
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of 
the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any 
data on the rebound effect specific to DPPP motors and did not apply a 
rebound effect.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a 
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination 
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most 
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for 
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, 
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \95\ 
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural 
gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to 
produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The 
approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is 
described in appendix 10B and 13A of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009. 
Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php (last 
accessed September 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product 
shipped during the projection period.
    As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed 
equipment price trends based on historical PPI data. DOE applied the 
same trends to project prices for each equipment class at each 
considered efficiency level. By 2055, which is the end date of the 
projection period, the average DPPP motor price is projected to drop 
between 0 to 51 percent depending on the efficiency level relative to 
2026. DOE's projection of product prices is described in appendix 10C 
of the NOPR TSD.
    To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend 
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different equipment price 
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for DPPP 
motors. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two 
equipment price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case and 
(2) a low price decline case based on historical PPI data. The 
derivation of these price trends and the results of these sensitivity 
cases are described in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
    The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy 
prices by the projection of annual national-average residential and 
commercial energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO2021, 
which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE 
used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2020 through 
2050. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that used inputs 
from variants of the AEO2021 Reference case that have lower and higher 
economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher energy price trends 
compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are 
presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent 
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 
analysis.\96\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in 
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are 
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value 
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private 
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the 
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society 
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
September 23, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC

[[Page 37152]]

impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative 
standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the impacts of the 
considered standard levels on one subgroup: \97\ senior-only 
households. The analysis used subsets of the RECS 2015 sample composed 
of households that meet the criteria for the subgroup. DOE used the LCC 
and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the considered 
efficiency levels on this subgroup. Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD 
describes the consumer subgroup analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ DOE did not evaluate low-income consumer subgroup impacts 
because the sample size of the subgroup is too small for meaningful 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of DPPP motors and to 
estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and 
manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative 
aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the 
INPV, investments in research and development (``R&D'') and 
manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. 
Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy 
conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, 
and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall 
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any 
disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small 
business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash flow model with 
inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on 
the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, 
manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital 
required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the 
INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis 
period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, 
and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses 
standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-
stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by 
comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between 
a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases (``TSLs''). To 
capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies 
following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible 
impacts under different markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, 
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and 
non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this proposed rulemaking in three phases. 
In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the DPPP motors 
manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment, 
preliminary manufacturer interviews, and publicly-available 
information. This included a top-down analysis of DPPP motors 
manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial inputs for 
the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation 
expenses; selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''); and 
R&D expenses). DOE also used public sources of information to further 
calibrate its initial characterization of the DPPP motors manufacturing 
industry, including company filings of form 10-K from the SEC,\98\ 
corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Census,\99\ 
and reports from D&B Hoovers.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
    \99\ See www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data.html.
    \100\ See https://app.dnbhoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow 
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of energy conservation 
standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of 
annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the standard and 
extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of the 
standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, costs of 
sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. In 
general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash 
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased 
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering 
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
    In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to 
distribute to manufacturers of DPPP motors in order to develop other 
key GRIM inputs, including product and capital conversion costs, and to 
gather additional information on the anticipated effects of energy 
conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets, 
industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed 
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, 
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial 
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key 
issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of this document for a 
description of the key issues raised by manufacturers during the 
interviews. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended 
standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost 
assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such 
manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-
volume manufacturers, niche players, and/or manufacturers exhibiting a 
cost structure that largely differs from the industry average. DOE 
identified one subgroup for a separate impact analysis: small business 
manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed in section 
VI.B, ``Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' and in chapter 12 
of the NOPR TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to 
amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The 
GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The GRIM 
spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, 
beginning in 2021 (the reference year of the analysis) and continuing 
to 2055. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual 
discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of 
residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE used a real 
discount rate of 7.2 percent, which was derived from industry 
financials and then modified according to feedback received during 
manufacturer interviews.

[[Page 37153]]

    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the 
amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed 
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of 
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering 
analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders during 
the course of manufacturer interviews and subsequent Working Group 
meetings. The GRIM results are presented in section V.B.2 of this 
document. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and 
other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient equipment is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline equipment due to the use of more complex 
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. 
The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, 
gross margins, and cash flow of the industry.
    DOE used data from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule to determine 
the MSP of DPPP motors. Specifically, DOE used Table 5.7.1 of the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule TSD, which estimated the MSPs of DPPP 
motors used in the analysis.\101\ DOE adjusted the MSPs used in the 
January 2017 Direct Final Rule from 2015$ into 2020$. DOE also 
conducted physical teardowns to determine updated DPPP motor controller 
costs for variable-speed motors. However, DOE did not include these 
costs in the MIA as the motor controller costs are typically 
manufactured by the DPPP manufacturers not by the DPPP motor 
manufacturers. The MPCs and MSPs used in this MIA only account for the 
DPPP motors covered by this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Table 5.7.1 of the January 2017 Direct Final Rule lists 
DPPP motor prices as MPCs. This is because the January 2017 Direct 
Final Rule was for DPPPs, not DPPP motors. In the January 2017 
Direct Final Rule, the selling price of the DPPP motors was part of 
the production costs for DPPP manufacturers. However, in this 
analysis the selling price of the DPPP motors is the MSP for DPPP 
motor manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a complete description of the MPCs, see chapter 5 of the NOPR 
TSD.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by 
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time 
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the 
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the 
shipments analysis from 2021 (the reference year) to 2055 (the end year 
of the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for additional 
details.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    Energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to incur 
conversion costs to bring their production facilities and equipment 
designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related 
expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered 
efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified 
these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion 
costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are 
investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other 
non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with 
amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs are 
investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or 
change existing production facilities such that new compliant product 
designs can be fabricated and assembled.
    DOE assumed that DPPP motor manufacturers would not incur any 
capital conversion costs for efficiency levels that single-speed or 
dual-speed motors would be able to meet. The same production equipment 
currently used to manufacture single-speed and dual-speed motors would 
still be able to be used to manufacture more efficient single- and 
dual-speed motors. However, DOE did assume that DPPP motor 
manufacturers would incur capital conversion costs at efficiency levels 
that variable-speed motors would be needed to meet the analyzed energy 
conservation standards.
    Additional production equipment would be needed to manufacture both 
additional variable-speed motor models and a larger production volume 
of variable-speed motors than are currently being produced. DOE used 
feedback from manufacturer interviews to estimate the cost of adding a 
production line to manufacture variable-speed motors. DOE then 
estimated the number of additional variable-speed production lines 
needed at each TSL, based on the increase in variable-speed shipments 
estimated at the analyzed TSL and the number of DPPP motor 
manufacturers that would need to introduce variable-speed motor models 
to meet the analyzed TSL.
    DOE assumed that DPPP motor manufacturers would not incur any 
additional product conversion costs for the standard size equipment 
classes. All DPPP motor manufacturers currently manufacture multiple 
variable-speed motor models in the standard size equipment classes. 
Additionally, the current DOE energy conservation standard for DPPPs 
\102\ that most commonly use the standard size DPPP motors use 
variable-speed motors to meet those efficiency requirements. Therefore, 
almost all standard size DPPP motors sold as part of a new DPPP are 
already variable-speed motors. However, DOE did assume that DPPP motor 
manufacturers would incur product conversion costs for the other 
equipment classes at each analyzed efficiency level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 82 FR 5650 (January 18, 2017), compliance date of July 19, 
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional DPPP motor models would need to be introduced for the 
extra small-size and small-size DPPP motor equipment classes at each 
efficiency level analyzed. To evaluate the level of product conversion 
costs manufacturers would likely incur to comply with the analyzed 
energy conservation standards for these equipment classes, DOE used a 
model database to estimate the number of DPPP motor models that would 
have to be redesigned at each efficiency level for each equipment 
class. DOE estimated a redesign effort of 2 months of engineering time 
per model to redesign a less efficient single-speed DPPP motor into a 
single-speed DPPP motor capable of meeting the analyzed energy 
conservation standards. DOE estimated a redesign effort of 6 months of 
engineering time per model to redesign a single-speed or less efficient 
dual-speed DPPP motor into a dual-speed DPPP motor capable of meeting 
the analyzed energy conservation standards. Lastly, DOE estimated a 
redesign effort of 24 months of four engineers for DPPP motor 
manufacturers that do not currently produce small-size DPPP variable-
speed motors to introduce one variable-speed DPPP motor model, for the 
analyzed energy conservation standards that would require variable-
speed DPPP motor for the small-size equipment classes.
    In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur 
between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which 
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion cost 
figures used in the GRIM can be found in Table IV.15 and Table IV.16 
and in

[[Page 37154]]

section V.B.2.a of this document. For additional information on the 
estimated capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the 
NOPR TSD.

                          Table IV.15--DPPP Motor Manufacturer Capital Conversion Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Efficiency level
                                        Equipment class    -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              EL 1     EL 2     EL 3     EL 4     EL 5     EL 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Conversion Costs (2020$      Extra Small (<0.5      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
 millions).                           THP).
                                     Small (0.5 <= THP <    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     20.0
                                      1.15).
                                     Standard (1.15 <=      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     17.5
                                      THP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table IV.16--DPPP Motor Manufacturer Product Conversion Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Efficiency level
                                        Equipment class    -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              EL 1     EL 2     EL 3     EL 4     EL 5     EL 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Conversion Costs (2020$      Extra Small (<0.5          0.0      0.2  .......  .......  .......  .......
 millions).                           THP).
                                     Small (0.5 <= THP <        0.1      0.6      3.9      4.0      4.3      8.7
                                      1.15).
                                     Standard (1.15 <=      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                      THP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied non-production cost markups to the 
MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and 
efficiency level. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields 
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled 
two standards-case markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding 
the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 
following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards: 
(1) a preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario; and (2) 
a preservation of per-unit operating profit markup scenario. These 
scenarios lead to different markup values that, when applied to the 
MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE 
applied a single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' markup across all 
efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to 
maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all 
efficiency levels within a product class. Based on publicly available 
financial information for DPPP motor manufacturers and information 
obtained during manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed the non-production 
cost manufacturer markup--which includes SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, 
interest, and profit--to be 1.37. This manufacturer markup is 
consistent with the manufacturer markup DOE used in the engineering 
analysis (see section IV.C). Therefore, DOE assumes that this scenario 
represents the upper bound to industry profitability under energy 
conservation standards.
    Under the preservation of per-unit operating profit markup 
scenario, DOE modeled a situation in which manufacturers are not able 
to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in 
manufacturer production costs. Under this scenario, as the MPCs 
increase, manufacturers are generally required to reduce the 
manufacturer markup to maintain a cost competitive offering in the 
market. Therefore, gross margin (as a percentage) shrinks in the 
standards cases. This manufacturer markup scenario represents the lower 
bound to industry profitability under new energy conservation 
standards.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
3. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE conducted manufacturer interviews prior to the publication of 
this NOPR. In these interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe 
their major concerns regarding this rulemaking. The following section 
highlights manufacturer concerns that helped inform the projected 
potential impacts of new energy conservation standards on the industry. 
Manufacturer interviews are conducted under non-disclosure agreements 
(``NDAs''), so DOE does not document these discussions in the same way 
that it does public comments in the comment summaries and DOE's 
responses throughout the rest of this document.
    Some manufacturers stated they only produce single-speed and dual-
speed motors within the small-size equipment class (0.5 <= THP < 1.15) 
and no longer supply DPPP motors used in new DPPP in that range to the 
California market after the CEC standard took effect. These 
manufacturers stated that they would need to design variable-speed 
motor models to meet any energy conservation standard that would 
require a variable-speed motor for the small-size equipment class. 
Additionally, these manufacturers would need to build additional 
production lines or make significant changes to existing single-speed 
or dual-speed production lines to be able to meet energy conservation 
standards requiring variable-speed DPPP motors for this equipment 
class. DOE included the capital and product conversion costs necessary 
for these DPPP motor manufacturers to introduce variable-speed DPPP 
motor models for the small-size equipment class.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH<INF>4</INF> and 
N<INF>2</INF>O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion.

[[Page 37155]]

    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and Hg uses emissions factors intended 
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity 
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology 
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side 
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The 
methodology is described in appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The analysis 
presented in this proposed rulemaking uses projections from AEO2021. 
Power sector emissions of CH<INF>4</INF> and N<INF>2</INF>O from fuel 
combustion are estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 
Inventories published by the EPA.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH<INF>4</INF> and CO<INF>2</INF>, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector 
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by 
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the 
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2021 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2021, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2021 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed July 6, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from affected electric generating units 
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 
cap on SO<INF>2</INF> for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 
the District of Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of the United States 
are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''). 
76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these States to reduce 
certain emissions, including annual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and went 
into effect as of January 1, 2015.\105\ AEO2021 incorporates 
implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR ozone season 
program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 
(Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is 
enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under 
existing EPA regulations, any excess SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) pollution, in order to 
address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address 
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, a 
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a 
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the 
CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 
(Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, beginning in 2016, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions began to fall 
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for 
power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, EPA 
established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid 
gas hazardous air pollutants (``HAP''), and also established a standard 
for SO<INF>2</INF> (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent 
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to 
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are 
being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on 
coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid 
gas. In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have either 
flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed. 
Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also 
reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Because of the emissions reductions 
under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed 
or used to permit offsetting increases in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 
another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that 
decrease electricity generation would generally reduce SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions. DOE estimated SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction using 
emissions factors based on AEO2021.
    CSAPR also established limits on NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for 
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy 
conservation standards would have little effect on NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOx emissions 
would remain near the limit even if electricity generation goes down. A 
different case could possibly result, depending on the configuration of 
the power sector in the different regions and the need for allowances, 
such that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions might not remain at the limit in the 
case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy conservation 
standards might reduce NOx emissions in covered States. Despite this 
possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in its analysis and has 
maintained the assumption that standards will not reduce NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy conservation standards 
would be expected to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the States not 
covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2021 data to derive NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions factors for the group of States not covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2021, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose 
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE 
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions 
of CO<INF>2,</INF> CH<INF>4</INF>, N<INF>2</INF>O, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
SO<INF>2</INF> that are expected to result from each of the TSLs 
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 
emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in 
the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis 
for the values used for monetizing the emissions benefits and presents 
the values considered in this NOPR.
    On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087)

[[Page 37156]]

granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending 
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in 
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of 
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in 
effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that 
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the 
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from 
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the 
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were 
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further 
intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the 
injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and 
permissible under law. DOE requests comment on how to address the 
climate benefits and other non-monetized effects of the proposal.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO<INF>2</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and N<INF>2</INF>O by using a 
measure of the SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC-CO<INF>2</INF>). These 
estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm to society 
associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these pollutants in 
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. These estimates 
are intended to include (but are not limited to) climate-change-related 
changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property 
damages from increased flood risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 
of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem 
services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the 
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the February 
2021 Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on 
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. DOE estimated the global social 
benefits of CO<INF>2</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and N<INF>2</INF>O 
reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the estimates presented in the 
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 
Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 published in 
February 2021 by the IWG. The SC-GHGs is the monetary value of the net 
harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a 
given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-
GHGs includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but 
not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health 
effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural 
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, 
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-
GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of 
the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the theoretically 
appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of 
policies that affect CO<INF>2</INF>, N<INF>2</INF>O and CH4 emissions. 
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 
SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the 
most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates have 
been developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
    The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many 
years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best 
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the 
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and other 
executive branch agencies and offices was established to ensure that 
agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO<INF>2</INF>) values 
used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates in 
2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited 
integrated assessment models (IAMs) that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity--a measure of the 
globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO<INF>2</INF> concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH<INF>4</INF>) and nitrous 
oxide (SC-N<INF>2</INF>O) using methodologies that are consistent with 
the methodology underlying the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates. The 
modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO<INF>2</INF> methodology to 
non-CO<INF>2</INF> GHGs has undergone multiple stages of peer review. 
The SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-N<INF>2</INF>O estimates were developed by 
Marten et al.\106\ and underwent a standard double-blind peer review 
process prior to journal publication. In 2015, as part of the response 
to public comments received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the 
SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> 
estimates to offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure 
that the estimates continue to reflect the best available science and 
methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their 
final report, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the 
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria for 
future updates to the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates, a modeling framework 
to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and 
longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the 
estimation process (National Academies, 2017).\107\ Shortly thereafter, 
in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which 
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 
ensure SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates used in regulatory analyses are 
consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's Circular A-4, 
``including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus 
international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount 
rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following 
E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on the U.S.-
specific share of climate change damages as estimated by the models and 
were calculated using two discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3 
percent and 7 percent. All other methodological decisions and model 
versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the same as those used by 
the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, 
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits 
consistent with the US Government's SC-CO2 estimates. Climate 
Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
    \107\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the

[[Page 37157]]

recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal 
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. 
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller 
update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into 
consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other 
recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a 
complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under 
E.O.13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used 
under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in 
multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such 
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have 
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global 
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider 
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries 
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The 
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions 
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of 
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, 
therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global 
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE 
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of 
climate damages to U.S. citizens and residents does not currently exist 
in the literature. As explained in the February 2021 TSD, existing 
estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total damages 
that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do 
not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers discussed 
above, nor do they include all of the important physical, ecological, 
and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change 
literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will 
continue to review developments in the literature, including more 
robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and 
explore ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon 
impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to follow 
developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount 
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately 
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of 
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National 
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to 
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically 
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context (IWG 2010, 
2013, 2016a, 2016b),\108\ and recommended that discount rate 
uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical 
considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 15, 
2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed 
April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical 
Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. 
(Last accessed January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Interagency Working 
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 
Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application 
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the 
Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January 
18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, 
as published in 2003, recommends using 3% and 7% discount rates as 
``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that ``different 
regulations may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending 
on the nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the 
sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.'' 
On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special ethical 
considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at 
a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that 
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not 
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide 
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized 
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% discount rate 
is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse 
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis. In this analysis, to 
calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, DOE 
uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value of 
damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future 
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be 
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent 
rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 
recommendations on how SC-GHG

[[Page 37158]]

estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with other cost and benefits 
estimates that may use different discount rates.'' The National 
Academies reviewed ``several options,'' including ``presenting all 
discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits with [SC-GHG] 
estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to 
follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. While 
the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer 
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set 
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the 
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on 
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range 
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the 
IWG has recommended that agencies to revert to the same set of four 
values drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount 
rates as were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and 
subject to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects 
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory 
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a 
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science 
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to 
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well 
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\109\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other 
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and 
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example, 
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their 
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the 
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are 
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between 
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time 
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as 
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last 
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The 
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of 
their influence on the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates. However, as 
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken 
together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates 
used in this final rule likely underestimate the damages from GHG 
emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at: 
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's derivations of the SC-GHG (SC-CO<INF>2</INF>, SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O, and SC-CH<INF>4</INF>) values used for this NOPR are 
discussed in the following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses 
estimating the benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs 
are presented in section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO<INF>2</INF> values used for this NOPR were generated 
using the values presented in the 2021 update from the IWG's February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD. Table IV.17 shows the updated sets of SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year 
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is 
presented in Appendix 14-A of the NOPR TSD. For purposes of capturing 
the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 
determined it is appropriate include all four sets of SC-CO<INF>2</INF> 
values, as recommended by the IWG.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change may be lower than 3 percent.

                    Table IV.17--Annual SC-CO2Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                           [2020$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistic
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                             5%              3%             2.5%              3%
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Average         Average         Average      95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..........................................              14              51              76               152
2025..........................................              17              56              83               169
2030..........................................              19              62              89               187
2035..........................................              22              67              96               206
2040..........................................              25              73             103               225
2045..........................................              28              79             110               242
2050..........................................              32              85             116               260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37159]]

    In calculating the potential global benefits resulting from reduced 
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, DOE used the values from the February 2021 
SC-GHG TSD, adjusted to 2020$ using the implicit price deflator for 
gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
DOE derived values from 2051 to 2070 based on estimates published by 
EPA.\111\ These estimates are based on methods, assumptions, and 
parameters identical to the 2020-2050 estimates published by the IWG. 
DOE derived values after 2070 based on the trend in 2060-2070 in each 
of the four cases (see appendix 14A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 
13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> value for that year in each of the 
four cases. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary 
values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the 
specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-N<INF>2</INF>O values used for this 
NOPR were generated using the values presented in the February 2021 SC-
GHG TSD. Table IV.18 shows the updated sets of SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and 
SC-N<INF>2</INF>O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-
year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used 
is presented in Appendix 14-A of the NOPR TSD. To capture the 
uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has 
determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-N<INF>2</INF>O values, as recommended by the IWG. 
DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for 
the SC-CO<INF>2</INF>.

                                  Table IV.18--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                                                 [2020$ per metric ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         SC-CH4                                              SC-N2O
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Discount rate and statistic                        Discount rate and statistic
                       Year                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       5%         3%        2.5%            3%             5%         3%        2.5%           3%
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Average    Average    Average    95th percentile    Average    Average    Average    95th percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.............................................        670      1,500      2,000             3,900       5,800     18,000     27,000            48,000
2025.............................................        800      1,700      2,200             4,500       6,800     21,000     30,000            54,000
2030.............................................        940      2,000      2,500             5,200       7,800     23,000     33,000            60,000
2035.............................................      1,100      2,200      2,800             6,000       9,000     25,000     36,000            67,000
2040.............................................      1,300      2,500      3,100             6,700      10,000     28,000     39,000            74,000
2045.............................................      1,500      2,800      3,500             7,500      12,000     30,000     42,000            81,000
2050.............................................      1,700      3,100      3,800             8,200      13,000     33,000     45,000            88,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CH<INF>4</INF> and N<INF>2</INF>O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O estimates for that year in each of the cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount 
rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NO<INF>X</INF> 
and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions from electricity generation 
using the latest benefit per ton estimates from the EPA's Benefits 
Mapping and Analysis Program.\112\ DOE used EPA's values for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>-related benefits associated with NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NO<INF>X</INF> for 2025, 2030 and 2040 calculated with discount rates 
of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define 
values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 
beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific 
to the sector for DPPP motors using a method described in appendix 14B 
of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 
Precursors from 21 Sectors. December 2 2021. www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year 
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the 
electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption 
of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact 
analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and 
generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on 
published output from the NEMS associated with AEO2021. NEMS produces 
the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate 
the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. For 
the current analysis, impacts are quantified by comparing the levels of 
electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and 
emissions in the AEO2021 Reference case and various side cases. Details 
of the methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 
of the NOPR TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or 
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect 
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of 
employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their 
suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to

[[Page 37160]]

the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase 
and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts 
from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the 
national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being 
regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) 
reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) 
increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards 
apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three 
factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in 
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere 
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate 
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs 
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of 
the economy.\113\ There are many reasons for these differences, 
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more 
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS 
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in 
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government 
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (last accessed July 6, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 
(``ImSET'').\114\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. 
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed 
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model 
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that there are uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the 
employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job 
impacts over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only 
to generate results for near-term timeframes (2026-2031), where these 
uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact 
analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for DPPP 
motors. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of 
each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for 
DPPP motors, and the standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in 
this NOPR. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in 
the NOPR TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for 
products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for 
each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider 
manufacturer cost interactions between the equipment classes, to the 
extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity 
from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different 
standard levels are set.
    In the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits 
and burdens of eight TSLs for DPPP motors. DOE developed TSLs that 
combine specific efficiency levels for each of the DPPP motor equipment 
classes analyzed by DOE. The TSLs that were chosen in the NOPR 
represent DPPPM at maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') 
energy efficiency levels and similar performance (i.e., variable-speed, 
2-speed, multi-speed and/or single-speed). DOE presents the results for 
the TSLs in this document, while the results for all efficiency levels 
that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD.
    Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels 
that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation 
standards for DPPP motors. TSL 8 represents the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') energy efficiency for all equipment classes, 
and freeze protection control requirements for DPPP motors greater than 
and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 7 represents the California CEC standards 
\115\ and includes a variable speed requirement for DPPP motors at or 
above 0.5 THP, an EL1 efficiency requirement below 0.5 THP, and freeze 
protection control requirements for DPPP motors greater than and equal 
to 0.5 THP. TSL 6 represents the performance requirements included in 
UL 1004-10:2022, which ensures DPPP motors operate similarly to motors 
in DPPPs that comply with the DOE standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f) and 
includes a variable speed requirement for DPPP motors at or above 1.15 
THP, an EL1 efficiency requirement below 1.15 THP, and freeze 
protection control requirements for DPPP motors greater than and equal 
to 1.15 THP. TSL 5 represents the 2-speed/multi-speed DPPP motor EL 5 
level DPPP motor for applicable equipment classes and freeze protection 
control requirements for DPPP motors greater than and equal to 0.5 THP. 
TSL 4 represents the 2-speed/multi-speed DPPP motor EL 4 level for 
applicable equipment classes and freeze protection control requirements 
for DPPP motors greater than and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 3 represents the 
2-speed/multi-speed DPPP motor EL 3 level for applicable equipment 
classes and freeze protection control requirements for DPPP motors 
greater than and equal to 0.5 THP. TSL 2 represents the highest 
efficiency single-speed DPPP motor level for all equipment classes. TSL 
1 represents the medium efficiency single-speed DPPP motor level for 
all equipment classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Best approximation based on the efficiency level analyzed.

[[Page 37161]]



                                                     Table V.1-Trial Standard Levels for DPPP Motors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             TSL                    TSL1            TSL2            TSL3            TSL4           TSL5           TSL6           TSL7           TSL8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra Small (<0.5 THP).......  EL 1..........  EL 2..........  EL 2..........  EL 2.........  EL 2.........  EL 1.........  EL 1.........  EL 2.
Small Size (0.5 <= THP <       EL 1..........  EL 2..........  EL 3 *........  EL 4 *.......  EL 5 *.......  EL 1.........  EL 6 *.......  EL 6.*
 1.15).
Standard Size (1.15 <= THP <=  EL 1..........  EL 2..........  EL 3 *........  EL 4 *.......  EL 5 *.......  EL 6 *.......  EL 6 *.......  EL 6.*
 5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes freeze protection control requirements.

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on DPPP motor consumers by 
considering the effects that potential standards at each TSL would have 
on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential 
standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed 
in the following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency equipment affects consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., equipment price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD 
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V.2 through Table V.7 of this NOPR show the LCC and PBP 
results for the TSLs considered for the three DPPP motor equipment 
classes. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is 
measured relative to the baseline equipment. In the second table, 
impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-
new-standards case in the compliance year (see section IV.F.8 of this 
document). Because some consumers purchase products with higher 
efficiency in the no-new-standards case, the average savings are less 
than the difference between the average LCC of the baseline equipment 
and the average LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only to consumers 
who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who already 
purchase a product with efficiency at or above a given TSL are not 
affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL 
experience a net cost.

                     Table V.2-Average LCC and PBP Results for Extra Small-Size DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average costs (2020$)
                                           -------------------------------------------------  Simple    Average
             TSL                Efficiency                               Lifetime             payback   lifetime
                                  level      Installed   First year's    operating    LCC     (years)   (years)
                                               cost     operating cost     cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 6, 7......................            1         $61             $58        $192     $253       0.7        3.6
2-5, 8.......................            2          92              53         175      267       2.1        3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.
  The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.


      Table V.3--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Extra Small-Size DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percent of
                     TSL                             Efficiency level            Average LCC     consumers that
                                                                                  savings *      experience net
                                                                                   (2020$)          cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,6,7.......................................  1.............................                $3                 0
2-5,8.......................................  2.............................               (6)                54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                        Table V.4-Average LCC and PBP Results for Small-Size DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average costs (2020$)
                                           -------------------------------------------------  Simple    Average
             TSL                Efficiency                               Lifetime             payback   lifetime
                                  level      Installed   First year's    operating    LCC     (years)   (years)
                                               cost     operating cost     cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 6.........................            1        $131            $205        $726     $857       0.3        4.5
2............................            2         162             186         660      822       0.7        4.5
3............................            3         308             199         721    1,029       3.3        4.5
4............................            4         330             171         620      950       2.5        4.5
5............................            5         354             162         586      940       2.5        4.5

[[Page 37162]]

 
7, 8.........................            6         493              92         358      852       2.3        4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.
  The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.


         Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Small-Size DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percent of
                     TSL                             Efficiency level            Average LCC     consumers that
                                                                                  savings *      experience net
                                                                                   (2020$)          cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 6........................................  1.............................               $11                 0
2...........................................  2.............................                20                11
3...........................................  3.............................              (38)                42
4...........................................  4.............................                 3                36
5...........................................  5.............................                 7                38
7,8.........................................  6.............................                69                30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                      Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for Standard-Size DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Average costs (2020$)
                                           -------------------------------------------------  Simple    Average
             TSL                Efficiency                               Lifetime             payback   lifetime
                                  level      Installed   First year's    operating    LCC     (years)   (years)
                                               cost     operating cost     cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................            1        $251            $576      $2,406   $2,657       0.4        4.5
2............................            2         282             531       2,218    2,500       0.5        4.5
3............................            3         444             358       1,515    1,958       0.7        4.5
4............................            4         472             317       1,341    1,813       0.7        4.5
5............................            5         502             286       1,210    1,712       0.7        4.5
6-8..........................            6         609             246       1,086    1,695       0.9        4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.
  The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.


       Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Standard-Size DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percent of
                     TSL                             Efficiency level            Average LCC     consumers that
                                                                                  savings *      experience net
                                                                                   (2020$)            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................  1.............................               $32                 0
2...........................................  2.............................                50                 0
3...........................................  3.............................               120                15
4...........................................  4.............................               156                13
5...........................................  5.............................               176                13
6-8.........................................  6.............................               292                 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on senior-only households. Table V.8 through Table V.13 
compare the average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for 
the consumer subgroup, with similar metrics for the entire consumer 
sample for DPPP motors. The average LCC savings and PBP for senior-only 
households at the considered efficiency levels are not substantially 
different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the NOPR 
TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroup.

[[Page 37163]]



   Table V.8--Comparison of Average LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroup and All Households for Equipment
                                           Class 1 Extra Small Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average life-cycle cost      Simple payback period (years)
                                                          savings (2020$)        -------------------------------
                       TSL                       --------------------------------
                                                    Senior-only                     Senior-only   All households
                                                    households    All households    households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 6, 7.........................................              $3              $3             0.7             0.7
2-5, 8..........................................              -6              -6             2.1             2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.9--Comparison of Fraction of Consumers Experiencing Net Benefit and Net Cost for Consumer Subgroup and
                             All Households for Equipment Class 1 Extra Small Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of consumers that       Percent of consumers that
                                                      experience net cost (%)       experience net benefit (%)
                       TSL                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Senior-only                     Senior-only
                                                    households    All households    households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 6, 7.........................................               0               0               8               8
2-5, 8..........................................              54              54              11              12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.10--Comparison of Average LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroup and All Households for Equipment
                                              Class 2 Small Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average life-cycle cost      Simple payback period (years)
                                                          savings (2020$)        -------------------------------
                       TSL                       --------------------------------
                                                    Senior-only                     Senior-only   All households
                                                    households    All households    Households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 6............................................             $11             $11             0.3             0.3
2...............................................              18              20             0.7             0.7
3...............................................            (40)            (38)             3.7             3.3
4...............................................             (2)               3             2.7             2.5
5...............................................               1               7             2.7             2.5
7,8.............................................              53              69             2.4             2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.11--Comparison of Fraction of Consumers Experiencing Net Benefit and Net Cost for Consumer Subgroup and
                                All Households for Equipment Class 2 Small Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of consumers that       Percent of consumers that
                                                      experience net cost (%)       experience net benefit (%)
                       TSL                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Senior-only                     Senior-only
                                                    households    All households    households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 6............................................               0               0               6               6
2...............................................              11              11              25              25
3...............................................              42              42              10              10
4...............................................              36              36              16              16
5...............................................              38              38              18              18
7, 8............................................              31              30              25              26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.12--Comparison of Average LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroup and All Households for Equipment
                                          Class 3 Standard Size Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Average life-cycle cost      Simple payback period (years)
                                                          savings (2020$)        -------------------------------
                       TSL                       --------------------------------
                                                    Senior-only                     Senior-only   All households
                                                    households    All households    households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             $28             $32             0.4             0.4
2...............................................              45              50             0.5             0.5
3...............................................             108             120             0.8             0.7
4...............................................             140             156             0.8             0.7
5...............................................             157             176             0.8             0.7
6-8.............................................             259             292             1.0             0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37164]]


 Table V.13--Comparison of Fraction of Consumers Experiencing Net Benefit and Net Cost for Consumer Subgroup and
                            All Households for Equipment Class 3 Standard Size Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of consumers that       Percent of consumers that
                                                      experience net cost (%)       experience net benefit (%)
                       TSL                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Senior-only                     Senior-only
                                                    households    All households    households    All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................               0               0               8               8
2...............................................               0               0              12              12
3...............................................              15              15              18              18
4...............................................              13              13              21              21
5...............................................              13              13              22              23
6-8.............................................               2               2              18              19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.E.2 of this document, EPCA establishes 
a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product 
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the 
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a 
rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, 
DOE used discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy 
use calculation on the DOE test procedure for DPPP motors. In contrast, 
the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using 
distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
    Table V.14 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs for DPPP motors. While DOE examined the rebuttable-
presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels 
considered for the NOPR are economically justified through a more 
detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to 
the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of 
that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the 
economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification.

                               Table V.14--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
                                                     [years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Trial standard level
                 Equipment class                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1       2       3       4       5       6       7       8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra-Small.....................................     0.8     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     0.8     0.8     2.4
Small-Size......................................     0.3     0.7     3.0     2.4     2.4     0.3     2.9     2.9
Standard-Size...................................     0.4     0.5     0.7     0.7     0.7     1.1     1.1     1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of DPPP motors. The following 
section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each 
considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in 
further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. 
Table V.15 and Table V.16 summarize the estimated financial impacts 
(represented by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of DPPP motors, as well as the 
conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of DPPP motors would 
incur at each TSL.
    As discussed in section IV.J.2.d of this document, DOE modeled two 
manufacturer markup scenarios to evaluate a range of cash flow impacts 
on the DPPP motor industry: (1) the preservation of gross margin 
percentage markup scenario and (2) the preservation of operating 
profit. DOE considered the preservation of gross margin percentage 
scenario by applying a ``gross margin percentage'' markup for each 
product class across all efficiency levels. As MPCs increase with 
efficiency, this scenario implies that the absolute dollar markup will 
increase. DOE assumed a manufacturer markup of 1.37 for DPPP motors. 
This manufacturer markup is with the same as the one DOE assumed in the 
engineering analysis and the no-new-standards case of the GRIM. Because 
this scenario assumes that a manufacturer's absolute dollar markup 
would increase as MPCs increase in the standards cases, it represents 
the upper-bound to industry profitability under potential new energy 
conservation standards.
    The preservation of operating profit scenario reflects 
manufacturers' concerns about their inability to maintain margins as 
MPCs increase to reach more-stringent efficiency levels. In this 
scenario, while manufacturers make the necessary investments required 
to convert their facilities to produce compliant products, operating 
profit does not change in absolute dollars and decreases as a 
percentage of revenue.
    Each of the modeled manufacturer markup scenarios results in a 
unique set of cash-flows and corresponding industry values at each TSL. 
In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the difference 
in industry value between the no-new-standards case and each standards 
case resulting from the sum of discounted cash-flows from 2021 through 
2055. To provide perspective on the short-run cash-flow impact, DOE 
includes in the discussion of results a comparison of free cash flow 
between the no-new-standards case and the

[[Page 37165]]

standards case at each TSL in the year before new standards are 
required.

                     Table V.15--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for DPPP Motors Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        No-new-                           Trial standard level *
                                                   Units               standards -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         case        1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV................................  2020$ millions................         798      800      804      823      829      835      826      901      901
Change in INPV......................  2020$ millions................  ..........      1.8      6.3     25.3     31.1     37.7     28.4    102.9    103.6
                                      %.............................  ..........      0.2      0.8      3.2      3.9      4.7      3.6     12.9     13.0
Product Conversion Costs............  2020$ millions................  ..........      0.1      0.8      6.2      6.2      6.5      0.1      8.7      8.8
Capital Conversion Costs............  2020$ millions................  ..........  .......  .......      6.4      6.4      6.4     15.4     37.5     37.5
Total Investment Required **........  2020$ millions................  ..........      0.1      0.8     12.6     12.6     12.9     15.5     46.2     46.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number.
** Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.


                     Table V.16--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for DPPP Motors Under the Preservation of Gross Margin Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        No-new-                           Trial standard level *
                                                   Units               standards -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         case        1        2        3        4        5        6        7        8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV................................  2020$ millions................         798      797      795      770      768      765      704      608      608
Change in INPV......................  2020$ millions................  ..........    (0.6)    (3.0)   (28.0)   (30.1)   (32.8)   (93.4)  (189.3)  (189.7)
                                      %.............................  ..........    (0.1)    (0.4)    (3.5)    (3.8)    (4.1)   (11.7)   (23.7)   (23.8)
Product Conversion Costs............  2020$ millions................  ..........      0.1      0.8      6.2      6.2      6.5      0.1      8.7      8.8
Capital Conversion Costs............  2020$ millions................  ..........  .......  .......      6.4      6.4      6.4     15.4     37.5     37.5
Total Investment Required **........  2020$ millions................  ..........      0.1      0.8     12.6     12.6     12.9     15.5     46.2     46.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate a negative number.
** Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -$0.6 
million to $1.8 million, or a change in INPV of -0.1 to 0.2 percent. At 
TSL 1, industry free cash-flow is $33.8 million, which is a decrease of 
less than $0.1 million compared to the no-new-standards case value of 
$33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up to the proposed standards.
    TSL 1 would set the energy conservation standard for all equipment 
classes at EL 1. DOE estimates that 93 percent of extra small size DPPP 
motors, 95 percent of small size DPPP motors, and 87 percent of 
standard size DPPP motors already meet or exceed the efficiency levels 
analyzed at TSL 1. At TSL 1, DOE estimates that manufacturers will 
incur approximately $0.1 million in product conversion costs, as some 
single speed DPPP motor models will need to be redesigned to comply 
with the standard. DOE also estimates that DPPP motor manufacturers 
will incur minimal to no capital conversion costs at TSL 1.
    At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
increases by 1.0 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 2026. In the 
preservation of gross margin markup scenario, manufacturers are able to 
fully pass on this slight cost increase to consumers. The slight 
increase in shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the 
$0.1 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly positive change in 
INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, 
manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be 
earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn 
additional profit from their investments. In this scenario, the 1.0 
percent shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the manufacturer markup after the analyzed compliance year. This 
reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $0.1 million in conversion 
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in 
INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of operating profit markup 
scenario.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -$3.0 
million to $6.3 million, or a change in INPV of -0.4 percent to 0.8 
percent. At TSL 2, industry free cash-flow is $33.6 million, which is a 
decrease of approximately $0.3 million compared to the no-new-standards 
case value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up to the 
proposed standards.
    TSL 2 would set all equipment classes at EL 2, which is max-tech 
for the extra small size DPPP motors. DOE estimates 33 percent of extra 
small size DPPP motors, 73 percent of small size DPPP motors, and 81 
percent of standard size DPPP motors already meet or exceed the 
efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2. At TSL 2, DOE estimates that 
manufacturers will incur approximately $0.8 million in product 
conversion costs, as many single speed DPPP motor models will need to 
be redesigned to comply with the set efficiency level. DOE also 
estimates that DPPP motor manufacturers will incur minimal to no 
capital conversion costs at TSL 2.
    At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
increases by 2.8 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 2026. In the 
preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the slight increase in 
shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the $0.8 
million in conversion costs, causing a slightly positive change in INPV 
at TSL 2 under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 2.8 
percent

[[Page 37166]]

shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction in the 
manufacturer markup after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction 
in the manufacturer markup and the $0.8 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at 
TSL 2 under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -$28.0 
million to $25.3 million, or a change in INPV of -3.5 percent to 3.2 
percent. At TSL 3, industry free cash-flow is $28.8 million, which is a 
decrease of approximately $5.1 million compared to the no-new-standards 
case value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up to the 
proposed standards.
    TSL 3 would set extra small size DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech) and 
set EL 3 for small and standard size DPPP motors. DOE estimates that 33 
percent of extra small size DPPP motors, 44 percent of small size DPPP 
motors, and 70 percent of standard size DPPP motors already meet or 
exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 3. At TSL 3, DOE estimates 
that manufacturers will incur approximately $6.2 million in product 
conversion costs, as small and standard sized single speed DPPP motors 
will most likely be unable to comply with the standard and would need 
to be redesigned into dual-speed or variable-speed DPPP motor models. 
DOE also estimates that DPPP motor manufacturers will incur $6.4 
million in capital conversion costs at TSL 3, to accommodate this 
increase in dual-speed and variable-speed DPPP motor manufacturing 
production capacity.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
increases by 11.5 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 2026. In the 
preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the moderate increase in 
shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the $12.6 
million in conversion costs, causing a slightly positive change in INPV 
at TSL 3 under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 
moderate 11.5 percent shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in 
a reduction in the manufacturer markup after the analyzed compliance 
year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $12.6 million 
in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative 
change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of operating profit 
markup scenario.
    At TSL 4, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -$30.1 
million to $31.1 million, or a change in INPV of -3.8 percent to 3.9 
percent. At TSL 4, industry free cash-flow is $28.8 million, which is a 
decrease of approximately $5.1 million compared to the no-new-standards 
case value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up to the 
proposed standards.
    TSL 4 would set extra small size DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech), 
and small size and standard size DPPP motors at EL 4. DOE estimates 
that 33 percent of extra small DPPP motors, 43 percent of small size 
DPPP motors, and 69 percent already meet or exceed the efficiency 
levels analyzed at TSL 4. At TSL 4, DOE estimates that manufacturers 
will incur approximately $6.2 million in product conversion costs as, 
in addition to single-speed motors most likely not being able to comply 
with the standards, some dual-speed DPPP motor models will need to be 
redesigned for higher efficiency. DOE also estimates that DPPP motor 
manufacturers will incur $6.4 million in capital conversion costs at 
TSL 4, to accommodate this increase in dual-speed and variable-speed 
DPPP motor manufacturing production capacity.
    At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
increases by 13.5 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 2026. In the 
preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the moderate increase in 
shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the $12.6 
million in conversion costs, causing a slightly positive change in INPV 
at TSL 4 under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 
moderate 13.5 percent shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in 
a reduction in the manufacturer markup after the analyzed compliance 
year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $12.6 million 
in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers causing a slightly 
negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation of operating 
profit markup scenario.
    At TSL 5, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -$32.8 
million to $37.7 million, or a change in INPV of -4.1 percent to 4.7 
percent. At TSL 5, industry free cash-flow is $28.7 million, which is a 
decrease of approximately $5.2 million compared to the no-new-standards 
case value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up to the 
proposed standards.
    TSL 5 would set extra small size DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech), 
and small and standard size DPPP motors at EL 5. DOE estimates that 33 
percent of extra small size DPPP motors, 41 percent of small size DPPP 
motors, and 67 percent of standard size DPPP motors already meet or 
exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 5. At TSL 5, DOE estimates 
that manufacturers will incur approximately $6.5 million in product 
conversion costs as, in addition to single-speed motors not being able 
to comply with the standard, many dual-speed DPPP motor models will 
need to be redesigned for higher efficiency. DOE also estimates that 
DPPP motor manufacturers will incur $6.4 million in capital conversion 
costs at TSL 5, to accommodate this increase in dual-speed and 
variable-speed DPPP motor manufacturing production capacity.
    At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
increases by 15.7 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 2025. In the 
preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the moderate increase in 
shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the $12.9 
million in conversion costs, causing a slightly positive change in INPV 
at TSL 5 under the preservation of gross margin markup scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 
15.7 percent shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in a 
reduction in the manufacturer markup after the analyzed compliance 
year. This reduction in manufacturer markup and the $12.9 million in 
conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative 
change in INPV at TSL 5 under the preservation of operating profit 
markup scenario.
    At TSL 6, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -$93.4 
million to $28.4 million, or a change in INPV of -11.7 percent to 3.6 
percent. At TSL 6, industry free cash-flow is $26.9 million, which is a 
decrease of approximately $7.0 million compared to the no-new-standards 
case value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up to the 
proposed standards.
    TSL 6 would set extra small size and small size DPPP motors at EL 1 
and standard size DPPP motors at EL 6 (max-tech). DOE estimates 93 
percent of extra small size DPPP motors, 95 percent of small size DPPP 
motors, and 66 percent of standard size DPPP motors already meet the 
efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 6. At TSL 6, DOE estimates that 
manufacturers will incur approximately $0.1 million in product 
conversion costs

[[Page 37167]]

as some pool filter pumps that use standard size motors downsize to a 
smaller sized single speed motors--necessitating redesign costs for 
standard size motor models. DOE also estimates that DPPP motor 
manufacturers will incur $15.4 million in capital conversion costs at 
TSL 6, to accommodate this increase in variable-speed DPPP motor 
manufacturing production capacity, for the standard size DPPP motors.
    At TSL 6, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
significantly increases by 18.9 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 
2026. In the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the large 
increase in shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the 
$15.5 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly positive change 
in INPV at TSL 6 under the preservation of gross margin markup 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 
18.9 percent shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in a 
reduction in the manufacturer markup after the analyzed compliance 
year. This reduction in manufacturer markup and the $15.5 million in 
conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative 
change in INPV at TSL 6 under the preservation of operating profit 
markup scenario.
    At TSL 7, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -
$189.3 million to $102.9 million, or a change in INPV of -23.7 percent 
to 12.9 percent. At TSL 7, industry free cash-flow is $13.9 million, 
which is a decrease of approximately $20.0 million compared to the no-
new-standards case value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up 
to the proposed standards.
    TSL 7 would set extra small size DPPP motors at EL 1; and small and 
standard size DPPP motors at EL 6, which is max-tech for both equipment 
classes. DOE estimates 93 percent of extra small size DPPP motors, 39 
percent of small size DPPP motors, and 66 percent of standard size DPPP 
motors already meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 7. At TSL 7, 
DOE estimates that manufacturers will incur approximately $8.7 million 
in product conversion costs. At TSL 7, most DPPP motor manufacturers 
would need to introduce variable-speed small size DPPP motor models 
into the market. DOE also estimates that DPPP motor manufacturers will 
incur $37.5 million in capital conversion costs at TSL 7, to 
accommodate a significant increase in variable-speed DPPP motor 
manufacturing production capacity for both the small size and standard 
size DPPP motors.
    At TSL 7, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
significantly increases by 45.0 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 
2026. In the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the large 
increase in shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the 
$46.2 million in conversion costs, causing a moderately positive change 
in INPV at TSL 7 under the preservation of gross margin markup 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 
45.0 percent shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in a 
significant reduction in the manufacturer markup after the analyzed 
compliance year. This large reduction in manufacturer markup and the 
significant $46.2 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers 
cause a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 7 under the 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario.
    At TSL 8, DOE estimates that impacts on INPV will range from -
$189.7 million to $103.6 million, or a change in INPV of -23.8 percent 
to 13.0 percent. At TSL 8, industry free cash-flow is $13.9 million, 
which is a decrease of approximately $20.0 million compared to the no-
new-standards case value of $33.9 million in 2025, the year leading up 
to the proposed standards.
    TSL 8 would set extra small size DPPP motors at EL 2 (max-tech); 
and small and standard size DPPP motors at EL 6, which is max-tech for 
both equipment classes. DOE estimates 33 percent of extra small size 
DPPP motors, 39 percent of small size DPPP motors, and 66 percent of 
standard size DPPP motors already meet the efficiency levels analyzed 
at TSL 8. At TSL 8, DOE estimates that manufacturers will incur 
approximately $8.8 million in product conversion costs. At TSL 8, most 
DPPP motor manufacturers would need to introduce variable-speed small 
size DPPP motor models into the market. DOE also estimates that DPPP 
motor manufacturers will incur $37.5 million in capital conversion 
costs at TSL 8, to accommodate a significant increase in variable-speed 
DPPP motor manufacturing production capacity for both the small size 
and standard size DPPP motors.
    At TSL 8, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors 
significantly increases by 45.2 percent relative to the no-new-
standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all DPPP motors in 
2026. In the preservation of gross margin markup scenario, the large 
increase in shipment-weighted average MPC for DPPP motors outweighs the 
$46.3 million in conversion costs, causing a moderately positive change 
in INPV at TSL 8 under the preservation of gross margin markup 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, the 
45.2 percent shipment-weighted average MPC increase results in a 
significant reduction in the manufacturer markup after the analyzed 
compliance year. This large reduction in manufacturer markup and the 
significant $46.3 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers 
cause a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 8 under the 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of new energy 
conservation standards on direct employment in the DPPP motors 
industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor 
expenditures, number of direct employees, and non-production employees 
in the no-new-standards case and in each of the standards cases during 
the analysis period.
    Production employees are those who are directly involved in 
fabricating and assembling products within an original equipment 
manufacturer facility. Workers performing services that are closely 
associated with production operations, such as materials handling tasks 
using forklifts, are included as production labor, as well as line 
supervisors.
    DOE used the GRIM to calculate the number of production employees 
from labor expenditures. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census 
Bureau's 2019 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (``ASM'') and the results 
of the engineering analysis to calculate industry-wide labor 
expenditures. Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing 
depend on the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an 
assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total 
labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to domestic 
production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures 
by the annual payment per production worker.
    Non-production employees account for those workers that are not 
directly engaged in the manufacturing of the covered product. This 
could include sales, human resources, engineering, and management. DOE 
estimated non-

[[Page 37168]]

production employment levels by multiplying the number of DPPP motor 
production workers by a scaling factor. The scaling factor is 
calculated by taking the ratio of the total number of employees, and 
the total number of production workers associated with the industry 
NAICS code 335312, which covers DPPP motor manufacturing.
    Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that there would be approximately 675 
domestic production workers and approximately 352 non-production 
workers for DPPP motors in 2026 in the absence of new energy 
conservation standards. Table V.17 shows the range of the impacts of 
energy conservation standards on U.S. production of DPPP motors.

                                             Table V.17--Total Number of Domestic DPPP Motor Workers in 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           No-new-                                   Trial standard level
                                                          standards  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             case        1        2        3        4        5          6            7            8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Production Workers in 2026....................          675      678      684      728      736      746          757          904          905
Production Workers in 2026.............................          352      354      357      380      384      389          395          472          472
Total Direct Employment in 2026........................        1,027    1,032    1,041    1,108    1,120    1,135        1,152        1,376        1,377
Potential Changes in Total Direct Employment in 2026...  ...........      0-5     0-14     0-81     0-93    0-108    (169)-125    (279)-349    (279)-350
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct employment impacts shown in Table V.17 represent the 
potential changes in direct employment that could result following the 
compliance date for the DPPP motors covered in this proposed 
rulemaking. Employment could increase or decrease due to the labor 
content of the equipment being manufactured domestically or if 
manufacturers decided to move production facilities abroad because of 
the new standards. At the less severe end of the range, DOE assumes 
that all manufacturers continue to manufacture the same scope of the 
equipment domestically after compliance with the analyzed new 
standards. The other end of the range assumes that some domestic 
manufacturing either is eliminated or moves abroad due to the analyzed 
new standards.
    DOE assumes that for DPPP motors, manufacturing is only potentially 
negatively impacted at TSLs that would most likely require variable-
speed DPPP motors. At these TSLs, the maximum number of employees that 
could be eliminated are the number of domestic employees that would be 
manufacturing single-speed and dual-speed DPPP motors in the absence of 
new energy conservation standards. DOE estimated that there would be 
approximately 72 domestic production employees involved in the 
production of single-speed and dual-speed small-size DPPP motors and 38 
non-production employees (for a total of 110 total employees) in 2026 
in the absence of new DPPP motor standards. DOE also estimated that 
there would be approximately 111 domestic production employees involved 
in the production of single-speed and dual-speed standard-size DPPP 
motors and 58 non-production employees (for a total of 169 total 
employees) in 2026 in the absence of new DPPP motor standards. However, 
DOE notes that motors used in DPPPs are frequently used in other non-
DPPP applications and motor manufacturers may choose to continue to 
manufacture single-speed and dual-speed motors (even at TSL 6, TSL 7, 
and TSL 8) that would be allowed to be used in other non-DPPP 
applications. If manufacturers choose to do this there would likely not 
be a significant impact on the overall domestic motor employment.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    DOE did not identify any significant capacity constraints for the 
design options being evaluated for this NOPR. The design options 
evaluated for this NOPR are available as equipment that is on the 
market currently. The materials used to manufacture DPPP motor models 
at all efficiency levels are widely available on the market. While 
there were a limited number of small size variable-speed DPPP motor 
models currently on the market, all manufacturers are capable of 
manufacturing standard size variable-speed DPPP motor models and would 
be able to manufacture small size variable-speed DPPP motor models if 
they choose to make the investments described in section IV.J.2.c of 
this document. As a result, DOE does not anticipate that the industry 
will likely experience any capacity constraints directly resulting from 
energy conservation standards at any of the TSLs considered.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    As discussed in section IV.J.1 of this document, using average cost 
assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow estimate may not be 
adequate for assessing differential impacts among manufacturer 
subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche manufacturers, and manufacturers 
exhibiting a cost structure substantially different from the industry 
average could be affected disproportionately. DOE used the results of 
the industry characterization to group manufacturers exhibiting similar 
characteristics. Consequently, DOE identified small business 
manufacturers as a subgroup for a separate impact analysis.
    For the small business subgroup analysis, DOE applied the small 
business size standards published by the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'') to determine whether a company is considered a small 
business. The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. To be 
categorized as a small business under NAICS code 335312, ``Motor and 
Generator Manufacturing,'' a DPPP motor manufacturer and its affiliates 
may employ a maximum of 1,250 employees. The 1,250-employee threshold 
includes all employees in a business's parent company and any other 
subsidiaries. Based on this classification, DOE identified one 
potential manufacturers that could qualify as domestic small 
businesses.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the

[[Page 37169]]

impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory 
burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations 
can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple 
regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead 
companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected 
future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts 
an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings 
pertaining to appliance efficiency.
    DOE is aware that DPPP motor manufacturers produce other products 
or equipment that are subject to DOE's energy conservation standards. 
DOE has ongoing rulemakings for some of these other products or 
equipment that DPPP motor manufactures produce, including electric 
motors \116\ and distribution transformers.\117\ None of these 
equipment have proposed or adopted energy conservation standards that 
require compliance within 3 years of the estimated compliance date 
(2026) for DPPP motors in this NOPR. If DOE proposes or finalizes any 
energy conservation standards for this equipment prior to finalizing 
energy conservation standards for DPPP motors, DOE will include the 
energy conservation standards for these other equipment as part of the 
cumulative regulatory burden for this DPPP motor proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007.
    \117\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of DPPP motors associated with 
multiple DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other 
Federal agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy 
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of 
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for DPPP motors, DOE compared their energy consumption under 
the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under 
each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of 
anticipated compliance with amended standards (2026-2055). Table V.18 
presents DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL 
considered for DPPP motors. The savings were calculated using the 
approach described in section IV.H of this document.

              Table V.18--Cumulative National Energy Savings for DPPP Motors; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2026-2055]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Trial standard levels
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................      0.09      0.15      0.41      0.53      0.61      0.65      0.95      0.95
FFC energy......................      0.09      0.15      0.43      0.55      0.63      0.67      0.99      0.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \118\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed 
rulemaking, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 
than 30 years of shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\119\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the equipment lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to DPPP motors. Thus, such results 
are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of 
any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity 
analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in 
Table V.19. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of DPPP motors 
purchased in 2026-2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
July 6, 2021).
    \119\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its 
standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 
products, a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated 
before compliance is required, except that in no case may any new 
standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the 
previous standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year 
compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 
undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year period and that the 
3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year 
analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that 
occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some 
products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

              Table V.19--Cumulative National Energy Savings for DPPP Motors; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2026-2034]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Trial standard levels
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      (quads)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy..................      0.03      0.05      0.14      0.18      0.20      0.20      0.29      0.29
FFC energy......................      0.03      0.05      0.15      0.19      0.21      0.20      0.30      0.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37170]]

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for DPPP motors. 
In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\120\ DOE 
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. Table V.20 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted 
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2026-2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed July 6, 2021).

       Table V.20 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for DPPP Motors; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2026-2055)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Trial standard level
          Discount rate          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  (billion 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................       0.7       1.1       1.4       2.3       2.7       5.4       6.3       6.3
7 percent.......................       0.4       0.6       0.7       1.1       1.3       2.7       3.0       3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V.21. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2026-2034. As mentioned previously, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision 
criteria.

       Table V.21--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for DPPP Motors; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2026-2034]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Trial standard level
          Discount rate          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  (billion 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.......................       0.3       0.5       0.6       1.0       1.2       2.0       2.1       2.1
7 percent.......................      0.22       0.3       0.4       0.7       0.8       1.4       1.3       1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate 
the change in price for DPPP motors over the analysis period (see 
section IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also conducted a sensitivity 
analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price 
decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of 
price decline than the reference case. The results of these alternative 
cases are presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the high-price-
decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is higher than in the 
default case. In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer 
benefits is lower than in the default case.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    It is estimated that that amended energy conservation standards for 
DPPP Motors would reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those 
products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other 
forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and 
economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in 
section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the 
U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that 
DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes 
(2026-2031), where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to 
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. 
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in 
national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 
effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed 
results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this document, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would 
not lessen the utility or performance of the DPPP motors under 
consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products 
currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed standards.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.E.1.e 
of this NOPR, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of 
any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, 
and transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, together 
with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To assist the 
Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has provided DOJ 
with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. DOE will 
consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to 
proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments 
in that document. DOE invites comment

[[Page 37171]]

from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to 
result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also 
provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. 
See the ADDRESSES section for information to send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD 
presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, 
relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered 
in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for DPPP motors is expected to yield environmental benefits 
in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases. Table V.22 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative 
emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in 
this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers 
discussed in section IV.K. of this document. DOE reports annual 
emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

                 Table V.22--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for DPPP Motors Shipped in 2026-2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Trial standard level
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (million metric tons)........       3.1       5.3      14.9      19.2      21.8      23.0      33.8      33.9
CH (thousand tons)..............       0.3       0.4       1.2       1.6       1.8       1.9       2.8       2.8
NO (thousand tons)..............      0.04      0.06      0.17      0.22      0.25      0.26      0.39      0.39
NO (thousand tons)..............       1.3       2.3       6.4       8.3       9.4       9.9      14.5      14.5
SO (thousand tons)..............       1.4       2.4       6.9       8.9      10.1      10.7      15.6      15.7
Hg (tons).......................      0.01      0.01      0.04      0.05      0.06      0.06      0.10      0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (million metric tons)........       0.2       0.4       1.0       1.3       1.5       1.6       2.4       2.4
CH (thousand tons)..............      21.5      36.2     102.4     132.1     150.5     159.9     234.4     234.9
NO (thousand tons)..............      0.00      0.00      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01      0.01
NO (thousand tons)..............       3.2       5.5      15.4      19.9      22.7      24.1      35.4      35.4
SO (thousand tons)..............      0.02      0.03      0.08      0.11      0.12      0.13      0.19      0.19
Hg (tons).......................      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00      0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (million metric tons)........       3.3       5.6      15.9      20.5      23.4      24.7      36.2      36.3
CH (thousand tons)..............      21.7      36.6     103.7     133.6     152.3     161.8     237.2     237.7
NO (thousand tons)..............      0.04      0.06      0.18      0.23      0.26      0.27      0.40      0.40
NO (thousand tons)..............       4.6       7.7      21.9      28.2      32.1      34.0      49.9      50.0
SO (thousand tons)..............       1.5       2.5       7.0       9.0      10.2      10.8      15.8      15.9
Hg (tons).......................      0.01      0.01      0.04      0.05      0.06      0.07      0.10      0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis for this proposed rulemaking, DOE estimated 
monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of 
CO<INF>2</INF> that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for 
DPPP motors. Section IV.L of this document discusses the SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> values that DOE used. Table V.23 presents the value of 
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> cases. The time-series of annual values is presented for 
the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

            Table V.23--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for DPPP Motors Shipped in 2026-2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SC-CO2 case
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Discount rate and statistics
                   TSL                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 5%                3%               2.5%               3%
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Average           Average           Average       95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      (Million 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................                34               140               216               427
2.......................................                58               237               366               721
3.......................................               165               671             1,034             2,040
4.......................................               212               863             1,331             2,626
5.......................................               241               983             1,516             2,990
6.......................................               250             1,028             1,587             3,128

[[Page 37172]]

 
7.......................................               367             1,508             2,329             4,590
8.......................................               367             1,511             2,334             4,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE estimated the climate benefits 
likely to result from the reduced emissions of CH<INF>4</INF> and 
N<INF>2</INF>O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for 
DPPP motors. Table V.24 presents the value of the CH<INF>4</INF> 
emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table V.25 presents the value of 
the N<INF>2</INF>O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of 
annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 
NOPR TSD.

          Table V.24--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for DPPP Motors Shipped in 2026-2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SC-CH4 case
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Discount rate and statistics
                   TSL                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 5%                3%               2.5%               3%
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Average           Average           Average       95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      (Million 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................                10                28                38                74
2.......................................                17                47                64               124
3.......................................                48               132               181               351
4.......................................                62               170               234               453
5.......................................                70               194               266               516
6.......................................                73               205               282               546
7.......................................               108               301               414               800
8.......................................               108               301               415               802
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table V.25--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for DPPP Motors Shipped in 2026-2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SC-N2O case
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Discount rate and statistics
                   TSL                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 5%                3%               2.5%               3%
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Average           Average           Average       95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      (Million 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................               0.1               0.5               0.8               1.4
2.......................................               0.2               0.9               1.4               2.4
3.......................................               0.7               2.6               3.9               6.8
4.......................................               0.9               3.3               5.0               8.7
5.......................................               1.0               3.7               5.7              10.0
6.......................................               1.0               3.9               6.0              10.4
7.......................................               1.5               5.7               8.8              15.3
8.......................................               1.5               5.8               8.8              15.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO<INF>2</INF> and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed on 
reduced GHG emissions in this proposed rulemaking is subject to change. 
That said, because of omitted damages, DOE agrees with the IWG that 
these estimates most likely underestimate the climate benefits of 
greenhouse gas reductions. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, 
will continue to review methodologies for estimating the monetary value 
of reductions in CO<INF>2</INF> and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 
review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the 
public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes that the proposed 
standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of 
monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits 
associated with NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions

[[Page 37173]]

anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for DPPP motors. The 
dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of 
this document. Table V.26 presents the present value for NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-
percent discount rates.

            Table V.26--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for DPPP Motors Shipped in 2026-2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TSL                                      3% Discount rate   7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       (Million 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................................                107                214
2.........................................................................                182                363
3.........................................................................                514              1,026
4.........................................................................                659              1,321
5.........................................................................                750              1,504
6.........................................................................                761              1,575
7.........................................................................              1,118              2,312
8.........................................................................              1,120              2,316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits 
associated with SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions anticipated to 
result from the considered TSLs for DPPP motors. The dollar-per-ton 
values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of this document. 
Table V.27 presents the present value for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent 
discount rates.

            Table V.27--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for DPPP Motors Shipped in 2026-2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    TSL                                      3% Discount rate   7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       (Million 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................................                 46                 91
2.........................................................................                 79                155
3.........................................................................                222                437
4.........................................................................                285                562
5.........................................................................                324                640
6.........................................................................                327                666
7.........................................................................                480                977
8.........................................................................                481                979
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits of reduced CO<INF>2</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and 
N<INF>2</INF>O emissions are collectively referred to as climate 
benefits. The benefits of reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions are collectively referred to as health benefits. For the time 
series of estimated monetary values of reduced emissions, see chapter 
14 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE has not considered the monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg 
for this final rule. Not all the public health and environmental 
benefits from the reduction of greenhouse gases, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
SO<INF>2</INF> are captured in the values above, and additional 
unquantified benefits from the reductions of those pollutants as well 
as from the reduction of Hg, direct PM, and other co-pollutants may be 
significant.
7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table V.28 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG 
and NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to the NPV of consumer 
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this proposed 
rulemaking. The consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings 
that occur as a result of purchasing the covered DPPP motors, and are 
measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2026-2055. The climate 
benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the 
adopted standards are global benefits, and are also calculated based on 
the lifetime of DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055.

               Table V.28--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate and Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                TSL 1     TSL 2     TSL 3     TSL 4     TSL 5     TSL 6     TSL 7     TSL 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........       1.1       1.7       3.1       4.4       5.1       8.0      10.1      10.0
3% Average SC-GHG case..........       1.2       1.9       3.7       5.2       6.0       8.9      11.4      11.4
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........       1.3       2.0       4.1       5.7       6.6       9.5      12.3      12.3
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..       1.5       2.4       5.3       7.2       8.3      11.3      15.0      15.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........       0.6       0.9       1.6       2.4       2.7       4.1       5.1       5.1

[[Page 37174]]

 
3% Average SC-GHG case..........       0.7       1.1       2.2       3.1       3.6       5.0       6.4       6.4
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........       0.8       1.3       2.6       3.6       4.2       5.7       7.4       7.4
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..       1.0       1.7       3.8       5.2       5.9       7.5      10.0      10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically 
justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, 
considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard 
must also result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of potential new 
standards for DPPP motors at each TSL, beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE 
then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 
technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a 
significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information, (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments, (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 
of the NOPR TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly 
control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across 
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price 
sensitivity variation according to household income.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\122\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. Available at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed April 
15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for DPPP Motors Standards
    Table V.29 and Table V.30 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for DPPP motors. The national impacts are 
measured over the lifetime of DPPP motors purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance 
with amended standards (2026-2055). The energy savings, emissions 
reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle 
results. DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended in applicable Executive orders and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this notice in the absence of 
the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the February 2021 
Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. The efficiency levels contained in 
each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.

[[Page 37175]]



                Table V.29--Summary of Analytical Results for DPPP Motors TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                   TSL 1    TSL 2    TSL 3    TSL 4    TSL 5    TSL 6    TSL 7    TSL 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...................................     0.09     0.15     0.43     0.55     0.63     0.67     0.99     0.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...............      3.3      5.6     15.9     20.5     23.4     24.7     36.2     36.3
CH4 (thousand tons).....................     21.7     36.6    103.7    133.6    152.3    161.8    237.2    237.7
N2O (thousand tons).....................     0.04     0.06     0.18     0.23     0.26     0.27     0.40     0.40
SO2 (thousand tons).....................      4.6      7.7     21.9     28.2     32.1     34.0     49.9     50.0
NOX (thousand tons).....................      1.5      2.5      7.0      9.0     10.2     10.8     15.8     15.9
Hg (tons)...............................     0.01     0.01     0.04     0.05     0.06     0.07     0.10     0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........      0.8      1.4      3.9      5.0      5.7      5.9      8.8      8.8
Climate Benefits *......................      0.2      0.3      0.8      1.0      1.2      1.2      1.8      1.8
Health Benefits **......................      0.3      0.5      1.5      1.9      2.1      2.2      3.3      3.3
Total Benefits [dagger].................      1.3      2.2      6.2      7.9      9.0      9.4     13.9     13.9
Consumer Incremental Product Costs......      0.1      0.3      2.5      2.8      3.1      0.5      2.5      2.5
Consumer Net Benefits...................      0.7      1.1      1.4      2.3      2.7      5.4      6.3      6.3
Total Net Benefits......................      1.2      1.9      3.7      5.2      6.0      8.9     11.4     11.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........      0.4      0.7      2.1      2.7      3.1      3.1      4.6      4.6
Climate Benefits *......................      0.2      0.3      0.8      1.0      1.2      1.2      1.8      1.8
Health Benefits **......................      0.2      0.3      0.7      0.9      1.1      1.1      1.6      1.6
Total Benefits [dagger].................      0.8      1.3      3.6      4.7      5.3      5.4      8.0      8.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs......      0.1      0.2      1.4      1.6      1.7      0.4      1.5      1.6
Consumer Net Benefits...................      0.4      0.6      0.7      1.1      1.3      2.7      3.0      3.0
Total Net Benefits......................      0.7      1.1      2.2      3.1      3.6      5.0      6.4      6.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055.
 * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane
  (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates;
  95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate), as shown in Table V.23 through Table V.25. Together these
  represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with
  the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central
  SC-GHG point estimate. See section IV.L of this document for more details. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth
  Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
  appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK
  (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect,
  pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
  things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating
  as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued
  by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the
  benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will
  revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and
  permissible under law.
 ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only
  monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits,
  but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in
  direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See
  section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
  the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.


        Table V.30--Summary of Analytical Results for DPPP Motors TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                TSL 1     TSL 2     TSL 3     TSL 4     TSL 5     TSL 6     TSL 7     TSL 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2020$) (No-  797-800   795-804   770-823   768-829   765-835   704-826   608-901   608-901
 new-standards case INPV = 798).
Industry NPV (% change).........  (0.1)-0.  (0.4)-0.  (3.5)-3.  (3.8)-3.  (4.1)-4.  (11.7)-3  (23.7)-1  (23.8)-1
                                         2         8         2         9         7        .6       2.9       3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Consumer Average LCC Savings (2020$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra Small-Size................         3       (6)       (6)       (6)       (6)         3         3       (6)
Small-Size......................        11        20      (38)         3         7        11        69        69
Standard-Size...................        32        50       120       156       176       292       292       292
Shipment-Weighted Average *.....        19        32        30        68        78       129       161       161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra Small-Size................       0.7       2.1       2.1       2.1       2.1       0.7       0.7       2.1
Small-Size......................       0.3       0.7       3.3       2.5       2.5       0.3       2.3       2.3
Standard-Size...................       0.4       0.5       0.7       0.7       0.7       0.9       0.9       0.9
Shipment-Weighted Average *.....       0.4       0.6       2.2       1.7       1.8       0.6       1.7       1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extra Small-Size................        0%       54%       54%       54%       54%        0%        0%       54%
Small-Size......................        0%       11%       42%       36%       38%        0%       30%       30%
Standard-Size...................        0%        0%       15%       13%       13%        2%        2%        2%
Shipment-Weighted Average *.....        0%        8%       31%       27%       28%        1%       17%       19%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

[[Page 37176]]

 
 * Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2026.

    DOE first considered TSL 8, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 8 would save an estimated 0.99 quads of FFC 
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 8, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $3.0 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and $6.3 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 8 are 36.3 Mt of 
CO<INF>2</INF>, 15.9 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 50.0 thousand 
tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.1 ton of Hg, 237.7 thousand tons of 
CH<INF>4,</INF> and 0.4 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 8 is $1.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at 
TSL 8 is $1.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.3 billion 
using a 3-percent discount rate. Using a 7-percent discount rate for 
consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, and the 3-percent discount 
rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the 
estimated total NPV at TSL 8 is $6.4 billion. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at 
TSL 8 is $11.4 billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for 
additional information, however DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of 
consumer benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is 
economically justified.
    At TSL 8, the average LCC impact is a savings of -$6 for extra 
small-size DPPP motors, $69 for small size DPPP motors, and $292 for 
standard-size DPPP motors. The simple payback period is 2.1 years for 
extra small-size DPPP motors, 2.3 years for small-size DPPP motors, and 
0.9 years for standard-size DPPP motors. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 54 percent for extra small-size DPPP 
motors, 30 percent for small-size DPPP motors, and 2 percent for 
standard-size DPPP motors.
    At TSL 8, the projected change in manufacturer INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $189.7 million to an increase of $103.6 million, which 
correspond to a decrease of 23.8 percent and an increase of 13.0 
percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $46.3 
million to comply with standards set at TSL 8. DOE estimates that 
approximately 33 percent of extra-small size DPPP motor shipments, 39 
percent of small size DPPP motor shipments, and 66 percent of standard 
size DPPP motor shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at 
TSL 8.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 8 for DPPP motors, 
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, 
emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some 
consumers, including average negative LCC for extra small-size DPPP 
motors, including those consumers in senior-only households. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 8 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 7, which would save an estimated 0.99 quads 
of FFC energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 7, the 
NPV of consumer benefit would be $3.0 billion using a discount rate of 
7 percent, and $6.3 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 7 are 36.2 Mt of 
CO<INF>2</INF>, 15.8 thousand tons of SO<INF>2</INF>, 49.9 thousand 
tons of NO<INF>X</INF>, 0.1 tons of Hg, 237.2 thousand tons of 
CH<INF>4,</INF> and 0.4 thousand tons of N<INF>2</INF>O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 7 is $1.8 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions at 
TSL 7 is $1.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.3 billion 
using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 7 is $6.4 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 7 is $11.4 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 7, the average LCC impact is a savings of $3 for extra 
small-size DPPP motors, $69 for small size DPPP motors, and $292 for 
standard-size DPPP motors. The simple payback period is 0.7 years for 
extra small-size DPPP motors, 2.3 years for small-size DPPP motors, and 
0.9 years for standard-size DPPP motors. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is zero percent for extra small-size DPPP 
motors, 30 percent for small-size DPPP motors, and 2 percent for 
standard-size DPPP motors.
    At TSL 7, the projected change in manufacturer INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $193.3 million to an increase of $102.9 million, which 
represent a decrease of 23.7 percent and an increase of 12.9 percent, 
respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $46.2 million to 
comply with standards set at TSL 7. DOE estimates that approximately 93 
percent of extra-small size DPPP motor shipments, 39 percent of small 
size DPPP motor shipments, and 66 percent of standard size DPPP motor 
shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 7.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at TSL 7 for DPPP 
motors, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings would outweigh 
the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including 
the $46.2 million in conversion costs that could result in a reduction 
in INPV for manufacturers of up to 23.8 percent.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. 
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the 
proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes at TSL 7, average LCC 
savings are positive for all equipment classes which is not the case at 
TSL 8.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for DPPP 
motors by grouping the efficiency levels for each equipment category 
into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its 
analysis. TSL 8 represents the max-tech energy efficiency for all 
equipment classes. As discussed previously, the max-tech level for 
extra small DPPPM would lead to average negative LCC for extra small-
size DPPP motors, including those consumers in

[[Page 37177]]

senior-only households. The benefits of max-tech efficiency levels for 
extra small DPPPM do not outweigh the negative impacts to consumers. 
DOE has tentatively concluded that TSL 8 is not economically justified.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for DPPP motors at TSL 7. The 
proposed amended energy conservation standards for DPPP motors, which 
are expressed as performance and design requirements are shown in Table 
V.31 of this document.

                       Table V.31--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Performance
                                          standard: full-   Design requirement: speed     Design requirement:
      Motor total horsepower (THP)        load efficiency          capability              freeze protection
                                                (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THP < 0.5..............................                69  None......................  None.
0.5 <= THP < 1.15......................  ................  Variable speed control....  Only for DPPP motors with
                                                                                        freeze protection
                                                                                        controls.
1.15 <= THP <= 5.......................  ................  Variable speed control....  Only for DPPP motors with
                                                                                        freeze protection
                                                                                        controls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2020$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission 
reductions.
    Table V.32 shows the annualized values for DPPP motors under TSL 7, 
expressed in 2020$. The results under the primary estimate are as 
follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in this rule is $163.5 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $482.3 million in 
reduced equipment operating costs, $104.2 million in climate benefits, 
and $168.7 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to $591.6 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $142.9 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are 
$504.2 million in reduced operating costs $104.2 million in climate 
benefits, and $188.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net 
benefit would amount to $654.4 million per year.

       Table V.32--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
                                                     [TSL 7]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Million 2020$/year
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low-net-benefits      High-net-benefits
                                                  Primary estimate          estimate              estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............                 504.2                 436.2                 580.9
Climate Benefits *............................                 104.2                  92.6                 115.6
Health Benefits **............................                 188.9                 168.1                 209.3
Total Benefits [dagger].......................                 797.3                 696.9                 905.9
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs..........                 142.9                 110.0                 178.0
Net Benefits..................................                 654.4                 587.0                 727.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............                 482.3                 424.8                 546.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).........                 104.2                  92.6                 115.6
Health Benefits **............................                 168.7                 152.0                 185.0
Total Benefits [dagger].......................                 755.2                 669.5                 847.5
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs..........                 163.5                 129.2                 199.0
Net Benefits..................................                 591.6                 540.3                 648.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055. The Primary, Low
  Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference
  case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
  equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
  Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
  projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and
  Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

[[Page 37178]]

 
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-GHG). For presentational purposes of
  this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown,
  but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and
  value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth
  Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
  appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK
  (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect,
  pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
  things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating
  as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued
  by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the
  benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will
  revert to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and
  permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires 
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') for review. OIRA has determined that this 
proposed regulatory action constitutes a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an 
assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs 
anticipated from the proposed regulatory action, together with, to the 
extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, 
including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned 
regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is 
preferable to the identified potential alternatives. A summary of the 
potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action is presented in 
Table VI.1.

       Table VI.1--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for DPPP Motors
                                                     [TSL 7]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Million 2020$/year
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low-net-benefits      High-net-benefits
                                                  Primary estimate          estimate              estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............                 504.2                 436.2                 580.9
Climate Benefits *............................                 104.2                  92.6                 115.6
Health Benefits **............................                 188.9                 168.1                 209.3
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................                 797.3                 696.9                 905.9
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs..........                 142.9                 110.0                 178.0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits..................................                 654.4                 587.0                 727.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............                 482.3                 424.8                 546.8
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate).........                 104.2                  92.6                 115.6
Health Benefits **............................                 168.7                 152.0                 185.0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 37179]]

 
Total Benefits [dagger].......................                 755.2                 669.5                 847.5
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Equipment Costs..........                 163.5                 129.2                 199.0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits..................................                 591.6                 540.3                 648.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with DPPP motors shipped in 2026-2055. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2055 from the products shipped in 2026-2055. The Primary, Low
  Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2021 Reference
  case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
  equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
  Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
  projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.1of this document. Note that the Benefits and
  Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  notice). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at
  a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate,
  and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
  estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the
  absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and
  presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has 
prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of 
this rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of DPPP motors, the SBA has set a size threshold, 
which defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size 
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to 
the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size 
standards, listed by respective North American Industry Classification 
System Codes (``NAICS'') and industry descriptions, are available at 
www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing of 
DPPP motors is classified under NAICS 335312, ``Motor and Generator 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 
for an entity in this category to be considered as a small business. 
This threshold includes employees of the entity itself as well as any 
parent, subsidiary, or sister organizations.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule establishing 
energy conservation standards for DPPPs. (82 FR 5650) Following this, 
DOE received feedback from manufacturers in support of regulating DPPP 
motors that would serve as replacement motors to the regulated pool 
pumps. On August 14, 2018, DOE received a petition submitted by a 
variety of entities (collectively, the ``Joint Petitioners'') 
requesting that DOE issue a direct final rule to establish prescriptive 
standards and a labeling requirement for DPPP motors (``Joint 
Petition'').\123\ On February 5, 2019, the Association of Pool & Spa 
Professionals (``APSP''), National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
(``NEMA''), Hayward, Pentair, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, WEG 
Commercial Motors, and Zodiac Pool Systems met with DOE to present an 
alternative approach to the Joint Petition, suggesting DOE propose a 
labeling requirement for DPPP motors. (February 2019 Ex Parte Meeting, 
No. 43 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The Joint Petition is available at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0048-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 5, 2020, in response to the Joint Petition and the 
alternative recommendation, DOE published a NOPR proposing to establish 
a test procedure and an accompanying labeling requirement for DPPP 
motors. Following this, on July 29, 2021, DOE published a final rule 
adopting a test procedure for DPPP motors. 86 FR 40765. DOE did not 
establish a labeling requirement and stated that it intends to address 
any such labeling and/or energy conservation standards requirement in a 
separate notification.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    As discussed previously in section II.A, EPCA authorizes DOE to 
regulate

[[Page 37180]]

the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain 
industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve 
energy efficiency. This equipment includes those electric motors that 
are DPPP motors, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment, including those electric 
motors that are DPPP motors. Any new or amended standard for a covered 
product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not 
adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE reviewed the potential standard levels considered in this NOPR 
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 
procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. During its 
market survey, DOE used publicly available information to identify 
potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved industry trade 
association membership directories (e.g., AHRI), information from 
previous rulemakings, individual company websites, and market research 
tools (e.g., D&B Hoover's reports) to create a list of companies that 
manufacture DPPP motors.
    As previously stated, manufacturing of DPPP motors is classified 
under NAICS 335312, ``Motor and Generator Manufacturing,'' for which 
the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to 
be considered as a small business. DOE screened out companies that do 
not offer products impacted by this rulemaking, do not meet the 
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated.
    DOE identified five companies manufacturing DPPP motors for the 
domestic market, of those DOE determined that one company met the SBA 
definition of a small business. DOE contacted this small business 
regarding a discussion of potential DPPP motor standards, but the small 
business was not interested in discussing potential impacts of energy 
conservation standards on DPPP motors.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    DOE reviewed the website and catalog offerings of the identified 
small business and determined that the manufacturer offers extra small 
sized DPPP motors that would meet requirements under the proposed 
standards as well as standard sized DPPP motors that are capable of 
variable speed. The small business is expected to need to introduce one 
variable speed, small sized DPPP motor model in order to comply with 
the energy conservation standards proposed in this NOPR.
    There are two types of costs the small business could incur due to 
the proposed standards for DPPP motors: product conversion costs and 
capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in 
R&D, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to 
make equipment designs comply with new energy conservation standards. 
Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and 
equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities 
such that new compliant equipment designs can be fabricated and 
assembled.
    DOE anticipates that the small business will incur approximately 
$1.1 million in product conversion costs--accounting for the 
compensation of four full-time engineers for 24 months of product 
design and testing work--and approximately $2.5 million in capital 
conversion costs to build a suitable production line to manufacture one 
small size DPPP motor model that would comply with the energy 
conservation standards for the small size DPPP motors proposed in this 
NOPR. Therefore, this small business would incur a total of 
approximately $3.6 million in conversion costs. DOE was able to 
identify an annual revenue estimate of approximately $28.2 million for 
the small business.\124\ The $3.6 million in conversion cost represents 
12.8 percent of the estimated annual revenue of the small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ The small business's annual revenue estimate is taken from 
D&B Hoovers (app.avention.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE assumes that all DPPP motor manufacturers would spread these 
costs over the five-year compliance timeframe, as standards are 
expected to require compliance approximately five years after the 
publication of a final rule. Therefore, DOE assumes that this small 
business would incur on average about $720,000 or approximately 2.6 
percent of its annual revenue in each of the five years leading up to 
the compliance date.
    DOE requests comment on its findings that there is one domestic 
small business that manufactures DPPP motors and on its estimate of the 
potential impacts on this small business.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
    DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and 
energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part 
431 subpart B), but those requirements do not apply to DPPP motors 
subject to the proposed energy conservation standards requirements 
because they do not fall within any of the specific classes of electric 
motors that are currently regulated by DOE.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by 
TSL 7. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined 
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 
1 through TSL 6 would reduce the impacts on small business 
manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy 
savings. TSL 1 through TSL 6 achieve 91 percent to 32 percent lower 
energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 7.
    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 7 
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 7 with the potential 
burdens placed on DPPP motor manufacturers, including small business 
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs 
considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined 
as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of 
the NOPR TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)). Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may

[[Page 37181]]

apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief 
under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 
430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and 
comprehensive information about the energy and water use 
characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the 
United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered 
equipment with applicable standards must submit a certification report 
before a basic model is distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, 
and if the basic model is redesigned in such a manner to increase the 
consumption or decrease the efficiency of the basic model such that the 
certified rating is no longer supported by the test data. Additionally, 
manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased 
and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual 
certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the 
manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish, 
maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the 
underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other 
testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR part 429, 10 
CFR part 430, and/or 10 CFR part 431. Certification reports provide DOE 
and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date efficiency information and 
support effective enforcement.
    DOE is not proposing certification or reporting requirements for 
DPPPM in this NOPR. Were DOE to establish energy conservation standards 
for DPPPM, certification of compliance would not be required until such 
time as DOE establishes such energy conservation standards and 
manufacturers are required to comply with those standards. DOE may 
consider proposals to establish certification requirements and 
reporting for DPPPM under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and 
equipment certification.
    DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that 
time, as necessary. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no 
person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a 
penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject 
to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this 
proposed rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it 
is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for 
consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions 
identified in categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary 
circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it 
otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical 
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review 
before issuing the final rule.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has 
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) 
and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by 
Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the 
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that 
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates 
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process

[[Page 37182]]

to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' 
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for 
timely input to potentially affected small governments before 
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on 
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. 
DOE's policy statement is also available at energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million 
or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may 
include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital 
expenditures by DPPPM manufacturers in the years between the final rule 
and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental 
additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency 
DPPPM, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOPR and the TSD for this 
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(A) through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), this proposed rule would 
establish energy conservation standards for DPPPM that are designed to 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has 
determined to be both technologically feasible and economically 
justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is 
presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for this proposed rule.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in 
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
proposes energy conservation standards for DPPPM, is not a significant 
energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 
on this proposed rule.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\125\

[[Page 37183]]

Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent 
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business 
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and 
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available 
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007, 
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's 
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed 
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of 
evaluating the resulting report.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed 10/27/21).
    \126\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the 
standard published by UL, titled, Standard For Pool Pump Motors, UL 
1004-10:2022. UL 1004-10:2022 establishes definitions for certain pool 
pump motors, and includes test requirements to verify variable-speed 
capability and applicable freeze protection design requirements. UL 
1004-10 is readily available at UL's website at https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL1004-10_1_S_20200228.

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration 
information, participant instructions, and information about the 
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on 
DOE's website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines Participants are responsible for ensuring their 
systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this 
document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that 
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an 
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#672617170b0e0609040234130609030615031436120214130e0809142702024903080249000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6e7d6d6cacfc7c8c5c3f5d2c7c8c2c7d4c2d5f7d3c3d5d2cfc9c8d5e6c3c388c2c9c388c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they 
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone 
number where they can be reached.
    Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of 
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for 
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to 
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before 
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot 
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those 
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building 
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral 
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may 
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will 
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will 
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a 
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, 
costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by 
U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the 
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the 
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics addressed in 
this proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this proposed rulemaking. Each participant will be 
allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by 
DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed 
rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept 
additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. 
The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or 
modification of the previous procedures that may be needed for the 
proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this document and will be accessible on the DOE website. In 
addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the 
transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.

[[Page 37184]]

    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') 
will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not 
secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects 
or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form 
of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic 
signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) DOE seeks comment on updating the UL 1004-10 reference from the 
2020 version to the 2022 version.
    (2) DOE seeks comment on the proposed equipment classes for DPPP 
motors based on motor THP thresholds.
    (3) DOE seeks comment on the technologies considered for higher 
DPPP motor efficiency. DOE seeks comment on whether other motor 
topologies should be considered as applicable in pool pumps.
    (4) DOE seeks comment on the proposed representative units and 
associated DPPP applications used for the engineering analysis.
    (5) DOE seeks comment on the efficiency levels, including the 
associated full load efficiencies and design requirements evaluated in 
the engineering analysis.
    (6) DOE seeks comment on using a 1.37 manufacturer markup for the 
cost analysis.
    (7) DOE seeks comment on the cost methodology and associated costs 
for each of efficiency levels evaluated in the engineering analysis, 
including any associated costs for the proposed freeze protection 
controls requirement.
    (8) DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels identified for 
DPPP motors and fraction of sales that go through each of these 
channels.
    (9) DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology to develop 
consumer samples and on the fraction of DPPP motor existing stock 
across the five following markets: (1) single-family homes with a 
swimming pool; (2) indoor swimming pools in commercial applications; 
(3) single-family community swimming pools; (4) multi-family community 
swimming pools; and (5) outdoor swimming pools in commercial 
applications.
    (10) DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology and inputs used 
to estimate DPPP motor energy use. Specifically, DOE seeks feedback on 
the average daily operating hours and annual days of operation used in 
the energy use analysis.
    (11) DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to project 
an equipment price trend for DPPP motors.
    (12) DOE seeks comment on installation costs estimates used in the 
LCC analysis.
    (13) DOE seeks comment on its decision to not include DPPP motor 
repair and maintenance costs in the LCC analysis.
    (14) DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop 
DPPP motor lifetime estimates.
    (15) DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop 
no-new standards case efficiency distributions in 2021. DOE seeks 
feedback on the approach used to project no-new standards case 
efficiency distributions in future years.
    (16) DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop 
base year shipments and for DPPP motors.
    (17) DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop 
no-new standards case shipments projections.
    (18) DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop 
the different standards case shipments projections. Specifically, at 
TSL 6. DOE requests information and feedback on the estimated fraction 
of standard-size DPPP motors used in small self-priming pool filter 
pumps and in non-self-priming pool filter pumps that will downsize to 
small-size DPPP motors.
    (19) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of DPPP motors associated with 
multiple DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other 
Federal agencies.
    (20) DOE requests comment on its findings that there is one 
domestic small business that manufactures DPPP motors and on its 
estimate of the potential impacts on this small business.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this proposed rulemaking that may not specifically be 
identified in this document.

[[Page 37185]]

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Incorporation 
by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by 
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 25, 
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for 
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
parts 429 and 431 of chapter II, title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  429.4 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (g) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  429.4  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other 
than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved material is available for inspection at DOE, and at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at: 
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e6c5b47424a4740495d6e4b4b004a414b00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4705322e2b232e2920340722226923282269202831">[email protected]</span></a>, www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f796d3176716c6f7a7c6b7670715f717e6d7e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f89e8ad691968b889d9b8c919796b896998a99d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>, or go to: 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material 
may be obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs of this 
section:
* * * * *
    (g) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, 
IL 60062, (841) 272-8800, or go to https://www.ul.com.
    (1) UL 1004-10:2022, ``Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors,'' 
First Edition, Dated February 28, 2020, including revisions through 
March 24, 2022; IBR approved for Sec.  429.134.
    (2) [Reserved]
0
3. Amend Sec.  429.134 by adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (s) Dedicated-purpose pool pump motors.
    (1) To verify the dedicated-purpose pool pump motor variable speed 
capability, a test in accordance with Section 5 of UL 1004-10:2022 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  429.4) will be conducted.
    (2) To verify that dedicated-purpose pool pump motor comply with 
the applicable freeze protection design requirements, a test in 
accordance with Section 6 of UL 1004-10:2022 will be conducted.

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
4. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
5. Section 431.481(b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.481  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (b) Scope. The requirements of this subpart apply to dedicated-
purpose pool pump motors, as specified in paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 
of UL 1004-10:2022 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.482).
* * * * *
0
6. Section 431.482 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  431.482  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other 
than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved material is available for inspection at DOE, and at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at: 
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a784f53565e53545d497a5f5f145e555f145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4301362a2f272a2d24300326266d272c266d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>, https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5b3a7fbbcbba6a5b0b6a1bcbabb95bbb4a7b4fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f697d2166617c7f6a6c7b6660614f616e7d6e21686079">[email protected]</span></a>, or go to: 
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material 
may be obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs of this 
section:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) UL 1004-10 (1004-10:2022), ``Standard for Safety for Pool Pump 
Motors,'' First Edition, Dated February 28, 2020, including revisions 
through March 24, 2022; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  431.481 and 
431.483.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 431.483 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 37186]]

Sec.  431.483  Definitions.

    The definitions applicable to this subpart are defined in Section 2 
``Glossary'' of UL 1004-10:2022 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.482). In addition, the following definition applies:
    Basic model means all units of dedicated purpose pool pump motors 
manufactured by a single manufacturer, that are within the same 
equipment class, have electrical characteristics that are essentially 
identical, and do not have any differing physical or functional 
characteristics that affect energy consumption or efficiency.
0
8. Section 431.485 is added to subpart Z to read as follows:


Sec.  431.485  Energy conservation standards.

    (a) For the purpose of paragraph (b) of this section, ``THP'' means 
dedicated-purpose-pool pump motor total horsepower.
    (b) Each dedicated-purpose pool pump motor manufactured starting on 
[date 24 months after date of final rule publication in the Federal 
Register] with a THP less than 0.5 THP, must have a full-load 
efficiency that is not less than 69 percent.
    (c) All dedicated-purpose pool pump motors manufactured starting on 
[date 24 months after date of final rule publication in the Federal 
Register] with a THP greater than or equal to 0.5 THP must be a 
variable speed control dedicated-purpose pool pump motor.
    (d) For all dedicated-purpose pool pump motors with a THP greater 
than or equal to 0.5 THP, distributed in commerce with freeze 
protection controls, the motor must be shipped with freeze protection 
disabled or with the following default, user-adjustable settings:
    (1) The default dry-bulb air temperature setting is no greater than 
40 [deg]F;
    (2) The default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour 
(before the temperature is rechecked); and
    (3) The default motor speed (in revolutions per minute, or rpm) in 
freeze protection mode shall not be more than half of the maximum 
operating speed.

[FR Doc. 2022-11745 Filed 6-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>