Source: http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027-0079
Timestamp: 2015-12-02 06:54:47
Document Index: 493578436

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 431']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content 2013-12-06 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Electric Motors; Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting. This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office (EERE)For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SummaryThe Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial and industrial electric motors. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes energy conservation standards for a number of different groups of electric motors that DOE has not previously regulated. For those groups of electric motors currently regulated, the proposed standards would maintain the current energy conservation standards for some electric motor types and amend the energy conservation standards for other electric motor types. The document also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
DatesDOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII Public Participation for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR before and after the public meeting, but no later than February 4, 2014. See section VII Public Participation for details.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for electric motors, and provide docket numberEE-2010-BT-STD-2027 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC28. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
A link to the docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0027. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII for further information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
For Further Information ContactJames Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov.
B. Equipment Classes and Current Scope of Coverage
C. Expanded Scope of Coverage
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance
a. Electric Motor Design Letter
b. Fire Pump Electric Motors
c. Brake Motors
d. Horsepower Rating
e. Pole Configuration
f. Enclosure Type
g. Other Motor Characteristics
a. Decrease the Length of Coil Extensions
b. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of Rotor Conductor Bars
c. Increase Cross-Sectional Area of End Rings
d. Increase the Number of Stator Slots
e. Electrical Steel With Lower Losses
f. Thinner Steel Laminations
g. Increase Stack Length
h. More Efficient Cooling System
i. Reduce Skew on Conductor Cage
a. Copper Die-Cast Rotors
4. Test and Teardowns
1. Comments on Operating Hours
2. Comments on Other Issues
3. Equipment Price Forecast
2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
b. Manufacturer Production Costs
c. Shipment Forecast
d. Markup Scenarios
c. Enforcement of Standards
d. Motor Refurbishment
a. Efficiency Levels above NEMA Premium
b. Increase in Equipment Repairs
c. Electric Motor Industry Structure and Nature of Competition
4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
2. Revise § 431.25 to read as follows:I. Summary of the Proposed RuleTitle III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Part C of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) established a similar program for “Certain Industrial Equipment,” including certain electric motors. (1)
(Within this preamble, DOE will use the terms “electric motors” and “motors” interchangeably.) Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE may prescribe for certain equipment, such as electric motors, shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)). Furthermore, any new or amended standard must result in a significantconservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)).
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes amending the energy conservation standards for electric motors by applying the standards currently in place to a wider scope of electric motors for which DOE does not currently regulate. In setting these standards, DOE is proposing to address a number of different groups of electric motors that have, to date, not been required to satisfy the energy conservation standards currently set out in 10 CFR part 431. In addition, with the exception of fire pump electric motors, the proposal would require all currently regulated motors to satisfy the efficiency levels prescribed in Table 12-12 and Table 20-B (2)
of MG1-2011, published by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association; fire pump motors would continue to meet the current standards that apply. All other electric motors that DOE is proposing to regulate would also need to meet these efficiency levels (i.e. Tables 12-12 and 20-B). As a practical matter, the many currently regulated motors would continue to be required to meet the standards that they already meet, but certain motors, such as those that satisfy the general purpose electric motors (subtype II) (“subtype II”) or that are NEMA Design B motors from 201 through 500 horsepower, would need to meet the more stringent levels prescribed by MG1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B. These proposed efficiency levels are shown in Table I.1. If adopted, the proposed standards would apply to all covered motor types listed in Table I.1 that are manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on December 19, 2015. DOE may, however, depending on the nature of the comments it receives, revisit this proposed compliance date.
Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors
Equipment class groupElectric motor design typeHorsepowerratingPoleconfigurationEnclosureProposed TSL
1NEMA Design A & B *1-5002, 4, 6, 8OpenEnclosed22
2NEMA Design C *1-2004, 6, 8OpenEnclosed22
3Fire Pump *1-5002, 4, 6, 8OpenEnclosed22
4Brake Motors *1-304, 6, 8OpenEnclosed22
The following tables (Tables I.2 to I.5) detail the various proposed standard levels that comprise TSL 2 and that DOE would apply to each group of motors. In determining where a particular motor with a certain horsepower (hp) or kilowatt rating would fall within the requirements, as in DOE's current regulations, DOE would apply the following approach in determining which rating would apply for compliance purposes:
(3) A kilowatt rating shall be directly converted from kilowatts to horsepower using the formula 1 kilowatt = (1/0.746) horsepower. The conversion should be calculated to three significant decimal places, and the resulting horsepower shall be rounded in accordance with the rules listed in (1) and (2).
Table I.2—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design A and NEMA Design B Electric Motors (Excluding Fire Pump Electric Motors, Integral Brake Electric Motors, and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors)
Motor horsepower/standard kilowattequivalentNominal full load efficiency (%)2 PoleEnclosedOpen4 PoleEnclosedOpen6 PoleEnclosedOpen8 PoleEnclosedOpen
300/22495.895.496.295.895.895.895.095.0
350/26195.895.496.295.895.895.895.095.0
400/29895.895.896.295.895.895.895.095.0
450/33695.896.296.296.295.896.295.095.0
500/37395.896.296.296.295.896.295.095.0
Table I.3—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for NEMA Design C Electric Motors (Excluding Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors and Integral Brake Electric Motors)
Table I.4—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Fire Pump Electric Motors
1/.7575.575.582.582.580.080.074.074.0
300/22495.495.095.495.495.095.494.594.5
350/26195.495.095.495.495.095.494.594.5
400/29895.495.495.495.495.095.494.594.5
450/33695.495.895.495.895.095.494.594.5
500/37395.495.895.895.895.095.494.594.5
Table I.5—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Integral Brake Electric Motors and Non-Integral Brake Electric Motors
Motor horsepower/standard kilowatt equivalentNominal full load efficiency (%)4 PoleEnclosed6 PoleOpen8 PoleEnclosedOpenEnclosedOpen
A. Benefits and Costs to ConsumersTable I.6 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of electric motors, as measured by the weighted average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the weighted average median payback period.
Table I.6—Impacts of Proposed Standards on Consumers of Electric Motors
Weighted average LCCsavings * (2012$)Weighted average median payback period * (years)
Equipment Class Group 11323.3
Equipment Class Group 2385.0
Equipment Class Group 3N/A **N/A **
Equipment Class Group 42591.9
B. Impact on ManufacturersThe 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 (2013 to 2044). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present value (INPV) for manufacturers of electric motors is $3,371.2 million in 2012$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 8.4 percent of their INPV, which corresponds to approximately $283.5 million. Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of electric motors, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment based on the energy conservation standards chosen in today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR).C. National Benefits and CostsDOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy. Estimated lifetime savings for electric motors purchased over the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new and amended standards (2015-2044) would amount to 7.0 quads (full-fuel-cycle energy). (4)
The annualized energy savings (0.23 quads) are equivalent to one percent of total U.S. industrial primary energy consumption in 2011. (5)
The estimated cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings attributed to the proposed standards for electric motors ranges from $8.7 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $23.3 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 equipment purchased in 2015-2044.
In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. Estimated energy savings would result in cumulative emission reductions of 396 million metric tons (Mt) (6)
of carbon dioxide (CO 2), 674 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2), 499 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X) and 0.8 tons of mercury (Hg). (7)
Through 2030, the estimated energy savings would result in cumulative emissions reductions of 96 Mt of CO 2. The value of the CO 2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO 2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) developed by an interagency process). (8)
The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M. DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO 2 emissions reduction is between $2.5 and $36.6 billion. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NO X emissions reduction is $0.3 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.6 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. (9)
Table I.7 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from the proposed standards for electric motors.
Table I.7—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Electric Motors Energy Conservation Standards, Present Value for Motors Shipped in 2015-2044 in Billion 2012$
CategoryPresent valuebillion 2012$Discount rate(%)
Benefits:Consumer Operating Cost Savings14.834.973
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) *2.55
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) *11.83
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) *18.92.5
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117.0/t case) *36.63
NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) **0.30.673
Total Benefits †26.947.473
Costs: Consumer Incremental Installed Costs6.111.773
Net Benefits: Including CO 2 and NO X Reduction Monetized Value20.835.773
The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards for electric motors, sold in years 2015-2044, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from operation of the commercial and industrial equipment that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO 2 emission reductions. (10)
Although combining the values of operating savings and CO 2 emission reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions while the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO 2 savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured over the lifetime of electric motors shipped in years 2015-2044. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards for electric motors are shown in Table I.8. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO 2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $462 million per year in increased equipment costs; while the estimated benefits are $1,114 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $586 million in CO 2 reductions, and $21.5 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $957 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $577 million per year in increased equipment costs; while the estimated benefits are $1,730 million per year in reduced operating costs, $586 million in CO 2 reductions, and $31.5 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit would amount to approximately $1,354 million per year.
Table I.8—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors, in Million 2012$
million 2012$/year Benefits: Consumer Operating Cost Savings7%3%1,1141,7309241,4211,3582,134
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) *5%155134179
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) *3%586506679
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) *2.5%8827621022
CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117.0/t case) *3%1,8111,5652,098
NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/ton) **7%3%21.4631.4818.5527.2024.6836.39
Total Benefits †7% plus CO 2 range7%3% plus CO 2 range3%1,290 to 2,9471,7211,916 to 3,5722,3471,077 to 2,5071,4491,583 to 3,0141,9551,562 to 3,4812,0612,350 to 4,2682,849
Costs: Incremental Installed Costs7%3%462577492601447569
Net Benefits: Total †7% plus CO 2 range7%3% plus CO 2 range3%585 to 2,016957982 to 2,4131,3541,115 to 3,0331,6141,781 to 3,7002,2801,353 to 3,4381,8871,957 to 4,0432,492
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. DOE further notes that equipment achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for most equipment classes covered by today's proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Depending on the comments that DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.II. IntroductionThe following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's proposed rule, as well as some relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for electric motors.A. AuthorityTitle III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” Part C of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) established a similar program for “Certain Industrial Equipment,” including electric motors. (11)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992) (Pub. L. 102-486) amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors (in context, “motors”) manufactured (alone or as a component of another piece of equipment) after October 24, 1997. In December 2007, Congress passed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Pub. L. 110-140). Section 313(b)(1) of EISA 2007 updated the energy conservation standards for those electric motors already covered by EPCA and established energy conservation standards for a larger scope of motors not previously covered by standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(2)) EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule no later than 24 months after the effective date of the previous final rule to determine whether to amend the standards already in effect. Any such amendment shall apply to electric motors manufactured after a date which is five years after either: (1) The effective date of the previous amendment or (2) if the previous final rule did not amend the standards, the earliest date by which a previous amendment could have been effective. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4)(B))
DOE is issuing today's proposal pursuant to Part C of Title III, which establishes an energy conservation program for covered equipment that consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For those electric motors for which Congress established standards, or for which DOE amends or establishes standards, the DOE test procedure must be the prescribed procedures that currently appear at 10 CFR part 431 that apply to electric motors. The test procedure is subject to review and revision by the Secretary in accordance with certain criteria and conditions. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Section 343(a)(5)(B)-(C) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)(B)-(C), provides in part that if the NEMA- and IEEE-developed test procedures are amended, DOE shall so amend the test proceduresunder 10 CFR part 431, unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that the amended industry procedures would not meet the requirements for test procedures to produce results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of the tested motor, or, would be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3), (a)(5)(B)) As newer versions of the NEMA and IEEE test procedures for electric motors were developed, DOE updated 10 CFR part 431 to reflect these changes. Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new and amended standards for covered equipment. In the case of electric motors, the criteria set out in relevant subsections of 42 U.S.C. 6295, which normally applies to standards related to consumer products, also apply to the setting of energy conservation standards for motors via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). As indicated above, new and amended standards must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6316(a)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain equipment, including electric motors, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-6316(a)) 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any new or amended standards that either increase the maximum allowable energy use or decrease the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6316(a)) 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 of 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. 6295(o)(4) and 6316(a))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6316(a))
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), as applied to covered equipment via 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of equipment for any group of covered equipment that have 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. 6294(q)(1) and 6316(a)). In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 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 include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2) and 6316(a))
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 6316(a)) 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 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).B. Background1. Current StandardsAn electric motor is a device that converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power. The outside structure of the motor is called the frame, which houses a rotor (the spinning part of the motor) and the stator (the stationary part that creates a magnetic field to drive the rotor). Although many different technologies exist, DOE's rulemaking is concerned with squirrel-cage induction motors, which represent the majority of electric motor energy use. In squirrel-cage induction motors, the stator drives the rotor by inducing an electric current in the squirrel-cage, which then reacts with the rotating magnetic field to propel the rotor in the same way a person can repel one handheld magnet with another. The squirrel-cage used in the rotor of induction motors consists of longitudinal conductive bars (rotor bars) connected at both ends by rings (end rings) forming a cage-like shape. Among other design parameters, motors can vary in horsepower, number of “poles” (which determines how quickly the motor rotates), and torque characteristics. Most motors have “open” frames that allow cooling airflow through the motor body, thoughsome have enclosed frames that offer added protection from foreign substances and bodies. DOE regulates various motor types from between 1 and 500 horsepower, with 2, 4, 6, and 8 poles, and with both open and enclosed frames.
EPACT 1992 amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain commercial and industrial electric motors manufactured either alone or as a component of another piece of equipment after October 24, 1997. Section 313 of EISA 2007 amended EPCA by: (1) Striking the definition of “electric motor” provided under EPACT 1992, (2) setting forth definitions for “general purpose electric motor (subtype I)” and “general purpose electric motor (subtype II),” and (3) prescribing energy conservation standards for “general purpose electric motors (subtype I),” “general purpose electric motors (subtype II), “fire pump electric motors,” and “NEMA Design B general purpose electric motors” with a power rating of more than 200 horsepower but not greater than 500 horsepower. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13), 6313(b)). The current standards for these motors, which are reproduced in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this notice, are divided into four tables that prescribe specific efficiency levels for each of those groups of motors.2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Electric MotorsOn October 5, 1999, DOE published in theFederal Register, a final rule to implement the EPACT 1992 electric motor requirements. 64 FR 54114. In response to EISA 2007, on March 23, 2009, DOE updated, among other things, the corresponding electric motor regulations at 10 CFR part 431 with the new definitions and energy conservation standards. 74 FR 12058. On December 22, 2008, DOE proposed to update the test procedures under 10 CFR part 431 both for electric motors and small electric motors. 73 FR 78220. DOE finalized key provisions related to small electric motor testing in a 2009 final rule at 74 FR 32059 (July 7, 2009), and further updated the test procedures for electric motors and small electric motors at 77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012). The May 2012 final rule primarily focused on updating various definitions and incorporations by reference related to the current test procedure. In that rule, DOE promulgated a regulatory definition of “electric motor” to account for EISA 2007's removal of the previous statutory definition of “electric motor.” DOE also clarified definitions related to those motors that EISA 2007 laid out as part of EPCA's statutory framework, including motor types that DOE had not previously regulated. See generally, id. at 26613-26619. DOE published a new proposed test procedure rulemaking on June 26, 2013, that proposes to further refine some existing electric motor definitions and add certain definitions and test procedure preparatory steps to address a wider variety of electric motor types than are currently regulated. 78 FR 38456.
Regarding the compliance date that would apply to the requirements of today's proposed rule, EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule no later than 24 months after the effective date of the previous final rule to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for such equipment. Any such amendment shall apply to electric motors manufactured after a date which is five years after: (i) The effective date of the previous amendment; or (ii) if the previous final rule did not amend the standards, the earliest date by which a previous amendment could have been effective. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(4))
As described previously, EISA 2007 constitutes the most recent amendment to EPCA and energy conservation standards for electric motors. Because these amendments required compliance on December 19, 2010, DOE had indicated during the course of public meetings held in advance of today's proposal that motors manufactured after December 19, 2015, would need to comply with any applicable new standards that DOE may set as part of this rulemaking. Today's proposed standards would apply to motors manufactured starting on December 19, 2015. As noted in detail later in this notice, however, DOE is interested in receiving comments on the ability of manufacturers to meet this deadline.
DOE received numerous comments from interested parties who provided significant input to DOE in response to the framework document and preliminary analysis that the agency had issued. See 75 FR 59657 (Sept. 28, 2010) (framework document notice of availability) and 77 FR 43015 (July 23, 2012) (preliminary analysis notice of availability). During the framework document comment period for this rulemaking, several interested parties urged DOE to consider including additional motor types currently without energy conservation standards in DOE's analyses and establishing standards for such motor types. In the commenters' view, this approach would more effectively increase energy savings than setting more stringent standards for currently regulated electric motors. In response, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comments from interested parties regarding establishment of energy conservation standards for several types of definite and special purpose motors for which EISA 2007 did not provide energy conservation standards. 76 FR 17577 (March 30, 2011). DOE received comments responding to the RFI advocating that DOE regulate many of the electric motors discussed in the RFI, as well as many additional motor types.
) submitted a Petition to DOE asking the agency to adopt a consensus stakeholder proposal that would amend the energy conservation standards for electric motors. The Motor Coalition's proposal advocated expanding the scope of coverage to a broader range of motors than what DOE currently regulates and it recommended that energy conservation standards for all covered electric motors be set at levels that are largely equivalent to what DOE proposes in today's NOPR (i.e., efficiency levels in NEMA MG1-2011 Tables 12-12 and 20-B). (13)
DOE received several comments from NEMA regarding the December 19, 2015, compliance date. First, NEMA pointed out that all publications and presentations prior to that preliminary analysis public meeting on August 21, 2012, indicated that DOE's statutory deadline for any final rule was December 19, 2012, but at the public meeting DOE showed a final rule completion date as the end of 2013. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 6-7) NEMA questioned the authority by which DOE has decided to delay the Final Rule beyond the date of December 19, 2012, as stipulated in EPCA. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 2)
Second, NEMA commented that shortening the time to comply with any new standards from three years to two years would place additional burdens on manufacturers considering all of the electric motors types that DOE is considering in the preliminary TSD, the burdensome candidate standard levels that DOE is considering, and thepossibility of expanding the scope of energy conservation standards. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 2, 7; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at p. 30)
Third, NEMA also noted that when EPACT 1992 first added electric motors as covered equipment, motor manufacturers were allowed five years to modify motor designs and certify compliance to the new standards. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) It further noted that NEMA MG 1-1998 subsequently introduced NEMA Premium efficiency standards, and between 1998 and 2007 manufacturers voluntarily increased the number of NEMA Premium efficiency motor models available. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) NEMA commented that this transition period eased the burden of satisfying the added stringency of the standards set by EISA 2007, which allowed three years to update energy conservation standards to mandatory NEMA Premium levels for certain motor ratings. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) NEMA added that adhering to the statutory deadline for setting any new and amended standards would minimize any disruption in the electric motor market. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 8) NEMA also commented that since the EISA 2007 standards were enacted, only a limited number of motor ratings above NEMA Premium have been offered because there is not sufficient space available in most frame ratings to increase the efficiency. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 7) NEMA added that any standards above NEMA Premium would force manufacturers to redesign entire product lines and go through the process of certification and compliance, all of which would be expected to take longer than three years. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 7, 8)
Finally, NEMA also attempted to illustrate the difficulty of reaching NEMA Premium levels in IEC frame motors, noting that a comparison of certificates of compliance before and after EISA 2007 standards went into effect would demonstrate that some manufacturers were forced to abandon the U.S. electric motor market for some period of time before they could update their IEC frame motor product line. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 8) NEMA added that increasing the efficiency of subtype II motors to NEMA Premium efficiency and expanding the scope of motors subject to energy conservation standards (many of which currently have efficiency levels below EPACT 1992 energy conservation levels) will also require extensive redesign, and manufacturers would be forced to comply in only three years. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 8)
During the course of preparing for the electric motors energy conservation standards rulemaking, information was submitted to DOE by NEMA, ASAP, and CDA in response to DOE's RFI and then later in the Petition from the Motors Coalition (14)
that caused DOE to reevaluate the scope of electric motors it was considering in this rulemaking. That Petition, and related supporting information, suggested that DOE apply the NEMA Premium efficiency levels (“NEMA Premium”) to a much broader swath of electric motors than are currently regulated by DOE, rather than increase the stringency of the standards that had only recently come into effect (i.e., EISA 2007 standards). As part of its routine practice, DOE reviewed the information and the merits of the Petition. With the potential prospect of expanding the types of motors that would be regulated by standards, DOE recognized the need to amend its test procedures to add the necessary testing preparatory steps (i.e. test set-up procedures) to DOE's regulations. The inclusion of these steps would help ensure that manufacturers of these new motor types would be performing the same steps as are performed when testing currently regulated motors.
The compliance date prescribed by statute would require manufacturers to begin manufacturing compliant motors by December 19, 2015. Accordingly, DOE is proposing a December 19, 2015, compliance date. DOE, however, recognizes that the statute also contemplated a three-year lead time for manufacturers in order to account for the potential logistical and production hurdles that manufacturers may face when transitioning to the new standards. Accordingly, while DOE is proposing a December 19, 2015 compliance deadline, it is also interested in comments that detail any hurdles with meeting this compliance deadline along with the merits of receiving the three-year lead-time also set out in the statute.3. Process for Setting Energy Conservation StandardsSection 325(o) provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards which are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency and for which the Secretary of Energy determines are technologically feasible and economically justified. Consequently, DOE must consider, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard; (2) the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the products compared to any increase in the prices, initial costs, or maintenance expenses for the products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (3) the total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; (4) any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of 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 imposition of the standard; (6) the need for national energy conservation; and (7) other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6316(a))
Other statutory requirements are set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)-(2)(A), (2)(B)(ii)-(iii), and (3)-(4). These criteria apply to the setting of standards for electric motors through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a).III. General DiscussionDOE developed today's proposed rule after considering input, including verbal and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and affiliations, are listed in Table III.1 below. The issues raised by these commenters are addressed in the discussions that follow.
Air Movement and Control Association International, IncAMCAITrade Association.
American Council for anEnergy-Efficient Economy.ACEEEEnergy Efficiency Advocates.
Flolo CorporationFloloOther.
Motor Coalition *MCEnergy Efficiency Advocates, Trade Associations, Manufacturers, Utilities.
Subsequent to DOE's preliminary analysis public meeting, several other interested parties submitted comments supporting the Petition. Those supporters included: BBF and Associates, the Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman, the Hydraulic Institute, the Arkansas Economic Development and Commission-Energy Office, and the Power Transmission Distributors Association.A. Test ProcedureOn June 26, 2013, DOE published a notice that proposed to incorporate definitions for certain motor types not currently subject to energy conservation standards (78 FR 38456). The notice also proposed to clarify several definitions for motor types currently regulated by energy conservation standards and adding some necessary steps to facilitate the testing of certain motor types that DOE does not currently require to meet standards. During its preliminary analysis stage, DOE received comments concerning definitions and test procedure set-up steps suggested for testing motors under an expanded scope approach. DOE addressed the comments as part of the test procedure NOPR. For additional details, see 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013).B. Equipment Classes and Current Scope of CoverageWhen 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 would justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature would justify a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors that DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a))
Existing energy conservation standards cover electric motors that fall into four categories based on physical design features of the motor. These four categories are: General purpose electric motors (subtype I), general purpose electric motors (subtype II), fire pump electric motors, and NEMA Design B motors (with a horsepower rating from 201 through 500). Definitions for each of these terms can be found at 10 CFR 431.12.C. Expanded Scope of CoverageDOE has the authority to set energy conservation standards for a wider range of electric motors than those classified as general purpose electric motors (e.g., definite or special purpose motors). EPACT 1992 amended EPCA to include, among other things, a definition for the term “electric motor”—which the statute defined as including certain “general purpose” motors. (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(A) (1992)) The amendments also defined the terms “definite purpose motors” and “special purpose motor.” (42 U.S.C. 6311(13)(C) and (D)) (1992)) EPACT 1992 initially prescribed energy conservation standards for “electric motors” (i.e., subtype I general purpose electric motors) and explicitly stated that these standards did not apply to definite purpose or special purpose motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b)(1) (1992)) However, EISA 2007 struck the narrow EPACT 1992 definition of “electric motor.” With the removal of this definition, the term “electric motor” became broader in scope. As a result of these changes, both definite and special purpose motors fell under the broad heading of “electric motors” that previously only applied to “general purpose” motors. While EISA 2007 prescribed standards for general purpose motors, the Act did not apply those standards to definite or special purpose motors. (42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (2012))
Although DOE believes that EPCA, as amended through EISA 2007, provides sufficient statutory authority for the regulation of special purpose and definite purpose motors as “electric motors,” DOE notes it has additional authority under section 10 of the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act, Public Law 112-210, which amended DOE's authority to regulate commercial and industrial equipment under section 340(2)(B) of EPCA to include “other motors,” in addition to “electric motors”. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(xiii)). Therefore, even if special and definite purpose motors were not “electric motors,” special and definite purpose motors would be considered as “othermotors” that EPCA already treats as covered industrial equipment. (15)
Consistent with EISA 2007's reworking of the definition, the 2012 test procedure final rule broadly defined the term “electric motor.” at 10 CFR 431.12. (77 FR 26608 (May 4, 2012)). That definition covers “general purpose,” “special purpose” and “definite purpose” electric motors (as defined by EPCA). As noted above, EPCA did not require either “special purpose” or “definite purpose” motor types to meet energy conservation standards because they were not considered “general purpose” under the EPCA definition of “general purpose motor”—a necessary element to meet the pre-EISA 2007 “electric motor” definition. See 77 FR 26612. Because of the restrictive nature of the prior electric motor definition, along with the restrictive definition of the term “industrial equipment,” DOE would have been unable to set standards for such motors without this change. (See 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B) (2006) (limiting the scope of equipment covered under EPCA)) In view of the changes introduced by EISA 2007 and the absence of energy conservation standards for special purpose and definite purpose motors, as noted in chapter 2 of DOE's July 2012 electric motors preliminary analysis technical support document (TSD), (16)
it is DOE's view that both of these motors are categories of “electric motors” covered under EPCA, as currently amended. Accordingly, DOE is proposing standards for certain definite purpose and special purpose motors. To this end, DOE is considering setting energy conservation standards for those motors that exhibit all of the following nine characteristics: Is a single-speed, induction motor,
Is rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC),
Contains a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor,
Has no more than 500 horsepower, but greater than or equal to 1 horsepower (or kilowatt equivalent), and
Meets all of the performance requirements of a NEMA Design A, B, or C electric motor or an IEC design N or H electric motor.However, motor types that exhibit all of the characteristics listed above, but that DOE does not believe should be subject to energy conservation standards at this time because of the current absence of a reliable and repeatable method to test them for efficiency, would be listed as motors that would not at this time be subject to energy conservation standards. Once a test procedure becomes available, DOE may consider setting standards for these motors at that time. See generally, 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). DOE requests comment on these nine characteristics and their appropriateness for outlining scope of coverage.
To facilitate the potential application of energy conservation standards to special and definite purpose motors, DOE proposed to define such motors and provide certain preparatory test procedure steps. 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). The definitions under consideration would address motors currently subject to standards, specific motors DOE is considering requiring to meet standards, and some motors that will continue to not be required to meet particular energy conservation standards. Some of the clarifying definitions, such as the definitions for NEMA Design A and C electric motors, come from NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2009, “Motors and Generators.” DOE understands that some of the motors addressed, such as partial motors and integral brake motors, do not have standard industry-accepted definitions. For such motor types, DOE worked with subject-matter experts (SMEs), manufacturers, and the Motor Coalition to create the working definitions that are proposed in the test procedure NOPR. (8 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013).D. Technological Feasibility1. GeneralEPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6316(a)). In each 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.
Where DOE determines that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in view of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. Section IV.B of this notice addresses the results of the screening analysis for electric motors, particularly the designs DOE considered—those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.2. Maximum Technologically Feasible LevelsWhen DOE proposes to adopt a new or 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. 6295(p)(1)) This requirement also applies to DOE proposals to amend the standards for electric motors. See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). Accordingly, in its engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for electric motors, using the design parameters for the most efficient motors available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.3 of this proposed rule.E. Energy Savings1. Determination of SavingsSection 325(o) of EPCA also provides that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)-(B) and 6316(a)). In addition, in determining whether such standard is technologically feasible and economically justified, DOE may not prescribe standards for certain types or classes of electric motors if such standards would not result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(a)). For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the motors that would be covered under this rulemaking and that would be purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2015-2044). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment purchased in the 30-year period. (17)
DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate the energy savings from new and amended standards for the equipment that would be subject to this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by motors at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate source energy, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).
DOE has begun to also estimate full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's evaluation of FFC savings is driven in part by the National Academy of Science's (NAS) report on FFC measurement approaches for DOE's Appliance Standards Program. (18)
The NAS report discusses that FFC was primarily intended for energy efficiency standards rulemakings where multiple fuels may be used by a particular product. In the case of this rulemaking pertaining to electric motors, only a single fuel—electricity—is consumed by the equipment. DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered equipment. The methodology for estimating FFC does not project how fuel markets would respond to this particular standard rulemaking. The FFC methodology simply estimates how much additional energy, and in turn how many tons of emissions, may be displaced if the estimated fuel were not consumed by the equipment covered in this rulemaking. It is also important to note that inclusion of FFC savings does not affect DOE's choice of proposed standards.2. Significance of SavingsAs noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings. Although the term “significant” is not explicitly defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” DOE believes that the energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in section V.A) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.F. Economic Justification1. Specific CriteriaEPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections detail how DOE addresses each of those factors in this rulemaking.a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and ConsumersIn determining the impacts of a new or amended standard on manufacturers, 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. (19)
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated with new or amended standards. The LCC, addressedas “savings in operating costs” at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is one of seven factors considered in determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard and is discussed in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking.b. Life-Cycle CostsThe LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a piece of equipment (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of that equipment. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and consumer discount rates. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers, as users of electric motors, will purchase the considered equipment in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards.
To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values with probabilities attached to each value. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.c. Energy SavingsAlthough significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project national energy savings.d. Lessening of Utility or PerformanceIn establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As noted earlier, the substance of this provision applies to the equipment at issue in today's proposal as well. DOE has determined that the standards proposed in today's notice will not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking. One piece of evidence for this claim includes the fact that many motors are already commonly being sold at the proposed levels (NEMA's “Premium” designation). A second piece of evidence is that the proposed standards closely track the recommendations of NEMA, which represents manufacturers who understand deeply the design compromises entailed in reaching higher efficiencies and who would be acting against the interest of their customers in recommending standards that would harm performance or utility.e. Impact of Any Lessening of CompetitionEPCA 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 the imposition of a standard. (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 of Energy 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of today's proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.f. Need for National Energy ConservationThe 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.
The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from today's standards, and from each TSL it considered, in section V.B.4 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.g. Other FactorsEPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))2. Rebuttable PresumptionAs set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product 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. 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 three-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. 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 IV.F.12 of this proposed rule.IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related CommentsDOE used four spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential new energy conservation standards. The second provides shipments forecasts and the third calculates national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential new energy conservation standards. The fourth tool helps assess manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM).
Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of energy conservation standards for electric motors on utilitiesand the environment. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), a widely known energy forecast for the United States. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT (20)
and is based on the AEO version with minor modifications. (21)
The NEMS-BT model offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards because it accounts for the interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.A. Market and Technology AssessmentFor the market and technology assessment, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. 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 rulemaking include scope of coverage, equipment classes, types of equipment sold and offered for sale, and technology options that could improve the energy efficiency of the equipment under examination. Chapter 3 of the TSD contains additional discussion of the market and technology assessment.1. Current Scope of Electric Motors Energy Conservation StandardsEISA 2007 amended EPCA to prescribe energy conservation standards for four categories of electric motors: General purpose electric motors (subtype I) (hereinafter, “subtype I”), general purpose electric motors (subtype II) (hereinafter, “subtype II”), fire pump electric motors, and NEMA Design B, general purpose electric motors that also meet the subtype I or subtype II definitions and are rated above 200 horsepower through 500 horsepower. DOE's most recent test procedure final rule added clarity to the definitions for each of these motor categories, which are now codified at 10 CFR 431.12. 77 FR 26608.
Although DOE is not proposing to modify these definitions, commenters sought additional clarifications. During the preliminary analysis public meeting, NEMA expressed confusion regarding whether IEC frame motors would fall under the subtype I or subtype II designation, as DOE defined them to be related to both definitions. NEMA added that because subtype I and subtype II electric motors are subject to different efficiency standards, manufacturers producing IEC frame motors are confused as to whether IEC frame motors are subject to NEMA MG 1 Table 12-11 or Table 12-12 efficiency standards. (22)
(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 36, 37)
DOE understands that an IEC frame motor could be treated as either a subtype I or subtype II motor depending on its other characteristics. Having an IEC frame alone does not dictate whether a motor is a general purpose subtype I or subtype II motor; rather, other physical characteristics, such as equivalency to a NEMA Design A, B, or C electric motor, and whether it has mounting feet could determine the subtype designation and associated energy efficiency standard level. All of these elements flow directly from the statutory changes enacted by EISA 2007. (See EISA 2007, sec. 313(a)(3), codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(13)) Currently, electric motors are required to meet energy conservation standards as follows:
Table IV.1—Current Electric Motor Energy Conservation Standards 23 Electric motor categoryHorsepower rangeEnergy conservation standard level
General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype I)1 to 200 (inclusive)MG 1-2011 Table 12-12.
General Purpose Electric Motors (Subtype II)1 to 200 (inclusive)MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.
NEMA Design B andIEC Design N Motors201 to 500 (inclusive)MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.
Fire Pump Electric Motors1 to 500 (inclusive)MG 1-2011 Table 12-11.
Additionally, NEMA requested clarification on the terminology DOE intends to use for NEMA Design B motors, namely whether the term is “NEMA Design B motor” or “NEMA Design B electric motor” and what, if any, differences there are between the two terms. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 14) DOE understands that the terms “motor” and “electric motor” may refer to a variety of machines outside of its regulatory context. However, because there are no NEMA Design B motors that are not electrically-driven, in DOE's view, the potential for ambiguity is minimal. DOE clarifies that it is using the term “NEMA Design B motor,” as is currently codified in 10 CFR 431.12. Additionally, DOE does not consider there to be any meaningful difference between the two terms and notes that all motors currently regulated under 10 CFR part 431, subpart B, are electric motors.
DOE requests comment on whether the proposed standards help resolve the potential issue on which it had previously issued clarification of whether a [IEC] motor may be considered to be subject to two standards.2. Expanded Scope of Electric Motor Energy Conservation StandardsAs referenced above, on August 15, 2012, the Motor Coalition petitioned DOE to adopt the Coalition's consensus agreement, which, in part, formed the basis for today's proposal. (24)
The Motor Coalition petitioned DOE to simplify coverage to address a broad array of electric motors with a few clearly identified exceptions. The Motor Coalition advocated this approach tosimplify manufacturer compliance and to help facilitate DOE's enforcement efforts. The Petition highlighted potential energy savings that would result from expanding the scope of covered electric motors. (Motor Coalition, No 35 at pp. 1-30) Subsequent to DOE's preliminary analysis public meeting, several other interested parties submitted comments supporting the Petition. Those supporters included: BBF and Associates, the Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Jeff Bingaman, the Hydraulic Institute, the Arkansas Economic Development and Commission-Energy Office, and the Power Transmission Distributors Association.
The California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs), represented by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) commented that they supported the Petition's intent to expand the scope of coverage to the vast majority of single speed, polyphase, and integral horsepower induction motors between 1 and 500 horsepower, as well as increasing energy conservation standards for some covered products. (CA IOUs, No. 57 at p. 2)
The Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc. (AMCA International) endorsed the Petition. AMCA International encouraged DOE to adopt the Petition to save energy as soon as possible. (AMCA International, No. 59 at p. 1)
The CDA and BBF supported DOE's preliminary analysis and the Petition, indicating that the Petition sets minimum efficiency levels that represent a challenge to the industry and can have a great impact on U.S. energy use. (BBF & Associates, No. 51 at pp. 1, 2; CDA, No. 55 at p. 1) BBF also urged DOE to investigate energy conservation standards for motors over 500 horsepower because preliminary indications suggest that as much as 27 percent of total motor power consumed in the U.S. is from motors over 500 horsepower, and higher efficiencies can provide substantial savings. (BBF, No. 51 at p. 4)
EASA supported the Motor Coalition's Petition, asserting that it is in the best interests of saving energy, U.S. jobs, and the economy overall to adopt that Petition's approach. EASA strongly encouraged the DOE to adopt the recommendations of the Motor Coalition, citing large and economically justified energy savings. (EASA, No. 47 at p. 1)
ACEEE commented on behalf of the Motor Coalition, stating that expanding the scope of energy conservation standards and only excluding a small group of motor types will enhance enforcement efforts by the government, by simplifying the standards to only include explicit exclusions. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at p. 19)
After reviewing the Petition, DOE is proposing to require electric motor types beyond those currently covered (and discussed in section IV.A.1) to meet energy conservation standards. DOE's proposed expansion is similar to the approach recommended by the Motor Coalition in its Petition (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at pp. 1-3). DOE's proposal would establish energy conservation standards for electric motors that exhibit all of the characteristics listed in Table IV.2, with a limited number of exceptions.
Table IV.2—Characteristics of Motors Regulated Under Expanded Scope of Coverage
Is a single-speed, induction motor,
Operates on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal power,
Is rated for 600 volts or less,
Is built with a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration,
Is a NEMA Design A, B, or C motor (or IEC Design N or H)
Is built in a three-digit NEMA frame size or an enclosed 56-frame (or any IEC equivalent), and
Is rated from 1 to 500 horsepower (inclusive).
In response to its preliminary analysis, DOE received several comments about the characteristics that DOE should use to define the broad scope of electric motors potentially subject to energy conservation standards. First, NEMA suggested that DOE define motor types exhibiting the nine characteristics listed in Table IV.2. (NEMA, No. 54 at p. 32) NEMA also requested that DOE clarify the range of horsepower ratings included and the scope of 56- and IEC-frame motors covered. The Energy Advocates (NPCC, NEEA, ACEEE, ASAP, Earthjustice, ASE) also suggested that DOE include IEC-equivalents and NEMA 56-frame sizes in the scope of coverage. (NPCC, No. 56 at p. 2)
Additionally, DOE is proposing to clarify the design, construction, and performance characteristics of covered electric motors. Specifically, DOE is proposing to clarify that only motors rated from 1 to 500 horsepower (inclusive), or their IEC equivalents, would be covered by the standards being proposed in today's rulemaking. Finally, with regard to IEC-frame motors, DOE would not cover IEC motors on the singular basis of frame size, but would consider covering such motors when they meet the criteria of Table IV.2. In other words, an IEC-frame motor would need to satisfy these nine criteria for the proposed standards to apply.
In its submitted Petition, the Coalition requested that DOE cover all single-speed, polyphase, 56-frame induction motors rated at one horsepower or greater that do not meet the regulatory definition for “small electric motor” in 10 CFR part 431, subpart X. This definition applies to both single-phase and polyphase open-frame general purpose AC induction motors built in a two-digit frame size. The proposal put forth by the Coalition would expand energy conservation standards to polyphase, enclosed 56-frame motors rated at one or more horsepower along with polyphase, special and definite purpose open 56-frame motors of horsepower greater than or equal to one that are not covered by DOE's small electric motor regulations.
Regarding 56-frame motors at 1-hp or greater, DOE is proposing standards for polyphase, enclosed 56-frame motors that are rated at 1-hp or greater. DOE is also tentatively proposing TSL 2 for polyphase, open 56-frame special and definite purpose motors that are rated at 1-hp or greater as advocated by the Motor Coalition. With respect to these motors (i.e. 56-frame, open, special and definite purpose), DOE seeks additional data related to these motors, including, but not limited to the following categories: Motor efficiency distributions; shipment breakdowns between horsepower ratings, open and enclosed motors, and between general and special and definite purpose electric motors; and information regarding the typical applications that use these motors. If this proposal is adopted in the final rule, DOE will account for a substantial majority of 56-frame motors that are not already regulated by efficiency standards and ensure coverage for all general purpose motors along with a substantial number of special and definite purpose motors.
Based on currently available data, DOE estimates that approximately 270,000 polyphase, open 56-frame special and definite purpose motors (1-hp or greater) were shipped in 2011 and at least 70% of these motors haveefficiency levels below NEMA Premium. (25)
In addition, based on this data, DOE believes that establishing TSL 2 for this subset of 56-frame motors would result in national energy savings of 0.58 quads (full-fuel-cycle) and net present value savings of $1.11 billion (2012$), with a 7 percent discount rate. (26)
DOE has not merged its data and analyses related to this subset of 56-frame motors with the other analyses in today's NOPR. As described above, DOE seeks additional information that can be incorporated into its final analysis.
DOE notes that enclosed 56-frame motors with horsepower ratings below 1 horsepower would not, however, be covered as part of today's proposal. DOE is not proposing to cover 56-frame size fractional motors because EPCA, as amended, establishes energy conservation standards for electric motors at 1-hp or greater and DOE requires the use of different test procedures for motors above and below 1-hp. In particular, DOE's regulations prescribe, consistent with industry practice, the use of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 112 (Test Method A) to test motors rated below 1-hp, and IEEE Standard 112 (Test Method B) to test motor rated at or above 1-hp. To ensure consistent testing results, DOE requires application of the same test procedure to all electric motors. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to regulate enclosed 56-frame size motors rated under 1-hp. (27)
This tentative decision, however, does not foreclose the possibility that DOE may regulate the efficiency of these motors and may change depending on the nature of the feedback provided by commenters with respect to this issue. DOE requests comment on its tentative decision to not address fractional horsepower enclosed 56-frame motors as part of today's proposal, along with any relevant information and data.
In view of Table IV.2, Table IV.3 lists the various electric motor types that would be covered by DOE's proposed approach. Further details and definitions for the motor types can be found in DOE's electric motors test procedure NOPR, which was published on June 26, 2013 (78 FR 38456).
Table IV.3—Currently Unregulated Motor Types DOE Proposes To Cover
Electric Motor Type NEMA Design A from 201 to 500 horsepower.Electric motors with non-standard endshields or flanges.
Electric motors with moisture resistant windings.Electric motors with non-standard bases.
Electric motors with sealed windings.Electric motors with special shafts.
Partial electric motors.Vertical hollow-shaft electric motors.
Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV) electric motors.Electric motors with sleeve bearings.
Immersible electric motors.Electric motors with thrust bearings.
Integral brake electric motors.Non-integral brake electric motors.
In view of DOE's proposed approach described in Table IV.3, DOE is proposing to include certain motor types that some interested parties have suggested that DOE continue to exclude from any energy efficiency requirements. For example, the Motor Coalition would exclude integral brake motors from coverage, as DOE once did through policy guidance, see 62 FR 59978 (November 5, 1997), but which was subsequently removed. See 77 FR 26638 (May 4, 2012). (Motor Coalition, No. 35 at p. 3) SEW-Eurodrive also commented that there are two basic types of integral gearmotor: (1) One that meets the definition in DOE's preliminary analysis, and (2) another having a special shaft or mounting configuration. SEW-Eurodrive contended that the second type of integral gearmotor would require replacement of the entire rotor shaft and rotor cage to be tested. (SEWE, No. 53, p. 3)
In view of the foregoing, DOE continues to believe that consistent and repeatable test procedures can be prescribed for integral brake motors, integral gearmotors, integral partial motors, and partial ¾ motors. See 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). In particular, DOE believes that an integral brake motor that meets the nine criteria in Table IV.2, could be readily tested and satisfy the proposed standards. In addition, DOE believes that the definition for “partial electric motor” and “component set” proposed in its June test procedure NOPR will clarify what types of items would meet these definitions, which should help manufacturers determine whether the equipment they manufacture fall under these terms. See 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013). Furthermore, DOE believes that the type of integral gearmotor addressed by SEW-Eurodrive (i.e., with a special shaft or mounting configuration) would likely satisfy DOE's proposed definition of component set, because it would require more than the addition of end shields and a bearing to create an operable motor. (Component sets would not be required to meet standards under today's proposal)
ACEEE supported the Motor Coalition's Petition in its approach to expand the scope of covered motors to comply with the energy efficiency levels found in Table 12-12 of NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-2011. According to ACEEE, such approach could be easily accomplished by manufacturers and, at the same time, allow them to refocus resources on designing and building the next generation of electric motor. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 18, 19) UL agreed with the ACEEE approach and suggested that DOE clarify the scope of coverage with a statement whereby all electric motors are subject to standards, except for those specifically mentioned as excluded. (UL, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at pp. 60, 61) Finally, the California Independently Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) submitted similar comments, suggesting that DOE expand the scope of coverage and explicitly define those motor types excluded from standards. The CA IOUs stressed that this approach would provide clarity both tocompliance and enforcement efforts by government agencies and manufacturers. (CA IOUs, No. 57 atp. 1)
After considering these comments, and further analyzing available relevant information, DOE believes that a simplified approach to determining coverage would help ensure consistency to the extent possible when applying the proposed standards. Therefore, in today's notice, DOE is proposing that an electric motor that meets the nine characteristics in Table IV-3 would be covered and required to meet the applicable energy conservation standards, either in NEMA MG 1 Table 12-11 or 12-12. Additionally, DOE is proposing not to set standards at this time for the following motors: component sets, liquid-cooled motors, submersible motors, and definite-purpose inverter-fed motors. DOE is not proposing to set standards for these motors in light of the substantial difficulties and complexities that would be involved in testing these motors at this time. In addition, DOE is proposing not to set standards at this time for air-over motors, but intends to address these types of motors in a separate rulemaking. Definitions for the motor types and additional details about these issues are addressed at 78 FR 38456 (June 26, 2013).3. Advanced Electric MotorsIn its preliminary analysis, DOE addressed various “advanced electric motor,” which included those listed in Table IV.4. While DOE recognized that such motors could offer improved efficiency, regulating them would represent a significant shift for DOE, which has primarily focused on the efficiency of polyphase, single-speed induction motors. Seeking more information, DOE solicited public comments about these types of motors and how they would be tested for energy efficiency.
Table IV.4—Advanced Electric Motors
Electrically commutated motors.
Switched-reluctance motors.
DOE received comments about advanced motors from various interested parties. NEMA asserted that, in certain applications, inverter drives, permanent-magnet motors, electronically commutated motors, and switched-reluctance motors, could offer improved efficiency. However, NEMA also noted that these motors may include technologies where standard test procedures are still being developed, making it unable to comment. (NEMA, No. 54 at pp. 18-19) DOE understands that a test procedure would be necessary before it contemplates setting energy conservation standards for these types of motors. Additionally, during the preliminary analysis public meeting, ACEEE commented that advanced motor designs present the largest opportunity for future energy savings within the motor marketplace and NEMA member manufacturers are already exploring the standards-setting process for advanced motor designs in the NEMA MG 1 standards publication. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 60 at p. 19)
Other interested parties submitted comments regarding the efficiency of “advanced motor systems” and, in general, motor-driven systems. Danfoss commented that system efficiency improvements would provide significant energy savings, and cited variable frequency drives (VFDs) as an example of a way to improve system efficiency. VFDs, or inverter drives, are external components used in motor-driven systems to control